Building Societies
	 — 
	Question

The Lord Bishop of Chester: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to support and develop mutual building societies.

Lord Myners: My Lords, the Government are committed to developing the mutuals sector. They supported a Private Member's Bill, which will, among other things, facilitate transfers between one type of mutual and another. This has recently been implemented for building societies.
	In addition, building societies are eligible for assistance under the Government's recapitalisation and credit guarantee schemes, and the Banking Act 2009 contains provisions which will help building societies to access liquidity support and ease legislative restrictions on their business.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer, but may I press him on one point? Is it fair that the mutual societies, which on the whole have conducted themselves in a fairly cautious and risk-free way, should be required to pay such large contributions to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to make up for the failures of Icelandic banks and similar institutions? Is this consistent with the Government's support for the mutual societies?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is not the first to make that point to the Treasury. The allocation of constituencies through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme was the subject of consultation and the current arrangement was welcomed by the building society movement. However, it is based on retail deposits and it is recognised that this means that a heavy burden is falling on building societies. The Financial Services Authority is consulting on the proposals for allocation although I do not think that an announcement is imminent.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the demutualisation of building societies was a major contributory cause of the crisis in the banking sector, that in most cases where greed motivated demutualisation the relevant demutualised societies collapsed, and that we now need to see the Government's promise put into practice so that we can re-establish a wide range of mutual societies to strengthen the regional base of our financial services?

Lord Myners: My Lords, there is a great deal in my noble friend's comments with which I agree. The demutualisation of building societies, approved, supported and encouraged by the members of those societies, has had regrettable conclusions. I, for one, regret that mutuals are less significant in the financial services sector, both in insurance and in banking, than they were originally. Mutual building societies exhibited a sense of community responsibility, attachment to their geography and, above all else, prudence and responsibility which is so different from the greed and self-serving motivation of those who have led some of our banks which have got into so much difficulty. I deeply regret the fact that the prudence of building societies did not remain in the ascendancy and instead became subservient to those who led our banks so monstrously badly.

Lord Newby: My Lords, given the noble Lord's support for the concept of mutuality, will he consider remutualising all or part of Northern Rock?

Lord Myners: My Lords, it is too soon to consider that issue but I very much welcome anything that can be done to encourage the co-operative movement, the credit union movement and mutuality. If, out of this disastrous affair, which has afflicted a small number of our major banks, some opportunity for promoting mutuality can be identified, I would be the first to endorse it.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, I welcome very much what the Minister has said about the mutual sector, particularly his desire to support it, but is it not rather unfortunate that in recent months a mutual society has collapsed because of the current financial problems and has not had any significant help from the Government? I am referring of course to the Presbyterian Mutual Society which, alone among all the financial institutions in trouble in the United Kingdom in recent months, has received no help at all from the Government. I wonder what it is that the Government do not like about it; is it perhaps because it is in Northern Ireland?

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Myners: My Lords, I think that the reaction from noble Lords would affirm the fact that this has nothing to do with the location of the society. Discussions are continuing with the Presbyterian Mutual Society and I am very aware of the concerns that have afflicted that particular society. The Financial Services Authority and the Treasury are in continuing discussions in respect of the Presbyterian. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to say anything further at this stage.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, when the Minister answered the right reverend Prelate, he said that he was not the first to make the point about the unfairness of the depositors' protection scheme. Why can the Government not come forward with a new proposal? As I understand it, the Government have lent the money. This money is going to be paid back. It will be paid through higher mortgage payments by people who have mortgages with building societies and lower interest payments for people who are depositors with building societies. Why do the Minister and the Government not come forward with an alternative proposal that is fairer? Why do they keep hiding behind consultations and the FSA and not actually come forward with a policy that is fair?

Lord Myners: My Lords, we as a Government think that consultation is the right way to proceed. It is entirely consistent with mutuality, which is members expressing views having appraised themselves of the situation. The Financial Services Authority is consulting, and we shall await the outcome of that consultation. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is administered by the FSA and it is a structure that was endorsed when the Financial Services and Markets Act was passed by Parliament.

Lord Dubs: My Lords—

Baroness Sharples: My Lords—

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, may I ask a question that is slightly wider than the original Question? It relates to credit unions. Does the noble Lord agree that the time is now very ripe indeed for the fullest consideration to be given to government assistance to credit unions, bearing in mind that there is ample evidence that more and more people are all the time falling into the clutches of loan sharks?

Lord Myners: My Lords, the Government are already giving considerable support to credit unions, and I believe that I evidenced that in my answer to an earlier question.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble friend give further thought to credit unions, particularly in Northern Ireland, where there have been some serious difficulties? I do not expect him to have the answer now, but will he agree to look at the position there? They are certainly working under serious constraints and are not able to work as competitively as credit unions either in Britain or in the Republic.

Lord Myners: My Lords, I shall definitely look more closely at the situation.

Supreme Court: Retirement Age
	 — 
	Question

Lord Pannick: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider raising the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 75.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court justices but are keeping this issue under review.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that slightly encouraging response. When he looks at this matter again, will he agree that special consideration should apply to judges of the Supreme Court, in that they are the cream of the judiciary and inevitably take time to rise to the top, normally after serving for several years in the High Court and then in the Court of Appeal? Is it not therefore a terrible waste of our most valuable judicial resources to dispose of them after a short stay in the Supreme Court?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as the House would expect, the noble Lord puts a powerful argument. However, there are arguments on the other side. We have to try to strike a balance between retaining experience and ensuring the flow of high-quality applicants to the highest judicial office. When we consider this—we consider it all the time—it will be only in relation to Supreme Court justices.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large number of High Court judges are not appointed until the age of 55? Consequently, if they have to retire at 70, they will serve only 15 years on the Bench and it becomes difficult to get through to the Supreme Court in time to do more than 18 months or two years. Is he also aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, was 70 when appointed—he is about to retire—but that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, was 67? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, was also 67, I think; if we had lost him as the senior Law Lord, we would have lost a huge amount of jurisprudence.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for that information, some of which I knew already. She puts forward powerful arguments, which will have to be balanced with other considerations that, I dare say, will be put in the next few minutes.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I had responsibility for introducing to Parliament the Act on which this difficulty arises. Of course, there have been many changes to the judicial system since then—many more than I had ever envisaged. This difficulty has shown up particularly in relation to the Supreme Court. The age limit of 70 came in when the Pensions Act became law and, therefore, it applies only to judges who were appointed after that time. In this situation, the quicker one arrives at the Supreme Court, the more likely one is to be cut down by this provision. That is a serious loss of talent. It is difficult to generalise, but those who reach the Supreme Court the quickest will, on the whole, be among the best of the talent available. I hope that this review will happen quickly and will have the outcome for which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has asked.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We have to balance the arguments for and against. I acknowledge him as the author not of our difficulties but of what we consider to be the sensible rule that judges should retire at 70.

Lord Borrie: My Lords—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is time both for my noble friend and for the noble Lord, Lord Lester.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, the retirement age for senior judges was introduced for the first time in 1959, when it was established at 75. Later, in the early 1990s, under I believe the Lord Chancellorship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, it was reduced to 70. Is it not rather odd that the retirement age is being reduced at a time when the physical and mental abilities of people in their 70s have never been higher?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall have to answer my noble friend with some care if I want to get out of this Chamber alive. Of course, it is right to acknowledge those in their 70s, but it is also right to acknowledge that we want to allow those who are coming through the system to get to the top jobs at a younger age.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I declare an interest—no one else has done so—in that I am 72. Of course, this is a totally unbiased House of elders whose average age is about the age that we are talking about. In considering the 1992 scheme of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will the Minister and his colleagues bear in mind the fact that the supreme courts of Australia, South Africa and New Zealand in the Commonwealth, the supreme court of Ireland outside the Commonwealth and the European Court of Human Rights all have retirement ages of 70, the only exception being Canada, as a result of the imperial Constitution Act 1867? Will he also bear in mind the fact that the scheme established by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, very sensibly provides for a supplementary panel so that one can go beyond 70 and sit until 75? Will he consider whether that is proportionate and fair if one wants to enliven and enrich the Bench and have diversity, rather than simply being ruled by rather old people?

Lord Bach: My Lords, interestingly, the average age of this House is below 70, but only just, I think. We will consider the points that the noble Lord makes. As I said, there are points to be made on all sides of this argument. It is a serious matter, and we want to consider it seriously.

Israel: Arms Embargo
	 — 
	Question

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support proposals for a complete embargo on exports of arms and military equipment to Israel by the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, imposing sanctions would advance neither Britain's influence nor the prospects for peace in the Middle East and in our view is not the best way to engage or to influence Israel. We have been very clear that, in accordance with EU arms export criteria, no arms exports are granted where there is a clear risk that those arms could be used for internal repression or external aggression, and that is surveyed very closely. We continue to monitor this very carefully.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is not a negligible matter. Can the Minister confirm that in the first nine months of 2008, military equipment worth more than £27 million was exported to Israel? Will the Government tell the incoming Government of Israel that disproportionate killing and destruction as in south Lebanon and Gaza is unacceptable? Will they redirect our arms export effort to supporting peace-building and to trying to ensure as far as possible that there is parity between those negotiating for peace?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, on the noble Lord's second point, we will continue to say to this Government and the incoming Government that disproportionate deaths of civilians are never acceptable. As to his first point, of the £27 million of sales to which he referred, £4 million were dual-use goods that were not being used for military purposes. Of the remaining £23 million, a single approval in January last year of a large contract for naval communications equipment accounted for over 75 per cent of the remainder. I assure the noble Lord and the House that in normal years we are a very small supplier of arms to Israel.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if Israel was rendered unable to defend itself, it would rapidly be destroyed by those neighbours who vowed to remove it from the face of the earth? In the light of yesterday's Statement on anti-terrorism, is it in the UK's best interests to impair the ability of a pro-western ally that is right at the forefront in the fight against terrorism?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, in this House and elsewhere, we have always confirmed Israel's right to self-defence. Whatever one's view of the conflict in the region, it is clear that Israel needs a significant capacity for that self-defence.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, a new Government are coming in in Israel who appear to be stone deaf to all forms of outside criticism, with a Prime Minister who has made it clear that he rejects the two-state solution and is not willing to withdraw from the Golan Heights as part of a negotiated principle. What are Her Majesty's Government going to do to provide the outside pressure needed on this new right-wing Government in Israel to make them think rather more constructively about common security and peace for the Palestinians?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I very much hope that the new Government in Israel will be given pause for thought by the fact that not just this Government but the Administration in Washington are, like nearly all of Israel's allies, firmly committed to a two-state solution and will use every opportunity to make that point unequivocally clear to the new Prime Minister.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Minister in the other place said that there is no evidence that any British defence exports were used in the recent Israeli operations in Gaza. When will the Foreign Office's assessment of that matter be completed?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to ask. There have been a number of reports on which we are drawing heavily as sources. There was the Amnesty report on 23 February. Our defence attaché in Tel Aviv has carried out an assessment. Once we have arrived at a clear picture of what materiel and equipment was used by the IDF, we will assess again whether any UK-exported parts or equipment were likely to have been involved. If so, we will adjust our export licensing policies accordingly.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that the previous Conservative Government imposed an arms embargo on Israel following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? Two years later, they raised that embargo, in the words of the then Foreign Secretary,
	"to reward Israel for pressing forward with the search for peace".
	Given the appalling devastation of Gaza by the Israeli defence forces and disturbing reports of instructions given to them that contravene international humanitarian law, is there not a strong case for Her Majesty's Government and the European Union—and the United States—to reimpose an arms embargo on Israel? Does the Minister agree that there is little reason to reject the case for an embargo on the grounds given 1964:
	"to reward Israel for pressing forward with the search for peace"?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, as an underlying policy objective, the UK believes that engaging with Israel, drawing it into the international community and making it meet its obligations to its Palestinian neighbours is the right way forward. Let me add that we do not consider European arms sales to Israel to be the big stick implied. Ninety-five per cent of Israel's defence imports come from the United States. If you add in the gifted element, it comes to 99 per cent. The other 1 per cent indeed comes from the European Union, and the three big providers are Germany, France and Romania. I say that to give us a sense of proportion here. UK arms sales are not a big factor.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, would it not be just a little absurd to deny arms sales to Israel—to have an embargo on Israel—a democratic ally which supplies us, for example, with drones used to protect our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan while, at the same time, Iran supplies Hamas with sophisticated rocketry that rains upon Israel?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I think that the international arms trade is filled with absurdities and contradictions. Let me reaffirm that we believe that arms sales to Israel that entirely meet the export licensing requirements and therefore, we are confident, will not be used for domestic repression are indeed legitimate, and we do not intend to cease them.

Lord Dykes: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are now in the 24th minute.

Privacy: Government Databases
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take following the conclusion in Database State by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust that several proposed government databases will not comply with privacy laws.

Lord Bach: My Lords, databases are necessary to protect the public and to deliver public services. The Government very carefully assess the potential privacy impact of any new database system or policy. It is not clear from the report what evidence the authors have used to reach their conclusions or the methodology that they have employed in reaching them. Frankly, there seems to be little real analysis. However, we are never complacent about such issues and, if we find that changes need to be made, we will make them.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, I must ask whether the evidence points to the fact that the Government are alone in believing that they are right to propose and enact the databases. Does he not realise that doctors, teachers, youth workers and the public in general have been very worried about these databases? If the Government will not review the legality of their databases, will they at least follow the recommendation in the Rowntree report that those databases should be subjected to an independent review of both their privacy impact and their overall benefits to society?

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course we will read the report carefully and respond to it as soon as we can. However, information is fundamental to the delivery of modern public services and public protection because it helps citizens to receive the services to which they are entitled, front-line staff to have the information that they need to do their jobs effectively and public services to be accurate and efficient. In saying that, I also recognise that the increasing use of data needs to be matched by increasing safeguards to protect the information and privacy of the individual.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, while we are all properly concerned with the personal data held by government and commercial organisations that snoop around our shopping habits, what view does the Minister take of the objectivity and academic rigour of the Rowntree report?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as a polemic and a campaign document it is quite useful, but as a piece of objective academic work it is rather less convincing. I commend David Aaronovitch's article in the Times yesterday, in which he made the point that, although the body that was asked to prepare the report started with an anti-database bias,
	"their report was treated as though it had emerged from a body of dispassionate academics engaged in open inquiry".
	Mr Aaronovitch ends by saying:
	"Perhaps in future they should try discussing these things with people who don't agree with them".

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, it was reported in the Telegraph on 14 March that the Government are planning yet another database on which will be logged the details of all trips abroad made by anyone from this country. Is it true that before travelling one will have to apply for permission, giving a complete and detailed itinerary, an e-mail address and credit card details?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry but I do not know the answer to the noble Lady's question, but I shall write to her and place a copy in the Library.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Rowntree trust report estimates that £16 billion a year is spent on IT projects of this sort. In view of the conclusions of the authors of the report, does not the Minister consider that it is time for a severe public expenditure cut in this area?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can hardly stand at the Dispatch Box and say that this Government, or perhaps even the one before, have not had problems with IT; I do not have the cheek to do that. However, IT can play an important role in making sure that the databases are proper, secure and used for the purposes intended. Governments of all colours will continue to spend money on IT.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, in the Government's view, at what age is a child able to give consent to data sharing? What view have they taken on parents' involvement in that decision? How extensively have they consulted parents on the age at which they have determined that children are capable of giving free consent?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I apologise for taking time to answer the noble Baroness. She may be referring to a particular database that has been the subject of some discussion in the last few days. If I am right and she is referring to the ContactPoint database, I should say that that database is supported by childcare experts, by major children's organisations, including Barnardo's and Action for Children, and by those working on the front line as the right tool to help professionals to keep children safe. We think that that database has been unfairly attacked.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the value of databases was proved a couple of weeks ago when a man was released after 27 years from prison following a serious miscarriage of justice?

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course I agree with my noble friend. It is absolute common sense that the DNA database has ensured not only that people who are not guilty of offences are declared not guilty but also that a large number of people who would not otherwise have been brought to court are found guilty of extremely serious offences.

Coroners and Justice Bill
	 — 
	First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2009

Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Order 2009

Guardian's Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2009

7th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments

Motions to Approve

Moved By Lord Davies of Oldham
	That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved.
	Relevant document:7th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
	Motions agreed.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2009

7th Report Joint Committee of Statutory Instruments
	7th Report Merits Committee

Motion to Approve

Moved By Lord Tunnicliffe
	That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.
	Relevant documents: 7th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 7th report from the Merits Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
	Motion agreed.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2009

Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2009

Financial Assistance Scheme and Incapacity Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2009

Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

7th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments

Motions to Approve

Moved By Lord McKenzie of Luton
	That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 10, 11 and 23 February be approved.
	Relevant document:7th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
	Motions agreed.

European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

7th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments

Motion to Approve

Moved By Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
	Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
	Motion agreed.

European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2009

8th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments

Motion to Approve

Moved By Lord Bach
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 March be approved.
	Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
	Motion agreed.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

5th Report Constitution Committee
	7th Report Constitution Committee

Report (1st Day)

Amendment 1
	 Moved by Baroness Hanham
	1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
	"Establishment of UK Border Police Force
	(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the UK Border Police Force.
	(2) The UK Border Police Force shall have the functions of—
	(a) detecting and removing illegal overstayers;
	(b) protecting UK borders;
	(c) investigating employers of illegal immigrants;
	(d) preventing and detecting human trafficking; and
	(e) such other functions as the Secretary of State may by order determine.
	(3) Before making an order under subsection (2)(e), the Secretary of State shall—
	(a) publish proposals;
	(b) consult members of the public and stakeholders; and
	(c) lay a draft before each House of Parliament.
	(4) Bodies to be consulted under subsection (3)(b) shall include—
	(a) the Metropolitan Police Commissioner;
	(b) representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers;
	(c) the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate;
	(d) representatives of the Serious Organised Crime Agency;
	(e) representatives of the Association of Police Authorities; and
	(f) such other people as the Secretary of State shall determine."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this amendment in Committee but I am still at a loss to understand—despite the Minister's long reply, for which I thank him—why the Government are going to such lengths to create only half of what is necessary to establish the security of our borders. The reason for returning to this issue is not to be stubborn but because I am genuinely puzzled as to why the Government have proceeded with the provisions in all 37 clauses in Part 1 to bring together personnel from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs with those already employed on immigration, to increase the role of both in providing support to the UK Border Agency, which deals with customs and immigration but has no incorporated police element.
	I understand the need for this legislation, which has clearly been brought about with some speed because the UK Border Agency, which includes personnel from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, is already operating in shadow form. The implementation process of Part 1 must proceed if the moves, which have already been made, are to have any legal force. The cart of opportunism seems to have been put before the horse of coherence.
	My party gives no ground to anyone in its determination to see that our borders are policed and administered in such a way as to protect our island from terrorism, serious crime, trafficking, drugs and all the other aspects of crime, including unauthorised immigration, which the Minister laid out in his response to the debate in Committee. In this regard, we believe that the powers should be enlarged to extend the remit of the border force to investigate those who may be encouraging illegal immigration and to ensure that those who come here and have no right to remain are removed—something that is singularly lacking under present arrangements and which is surely germane to the control of who is in this country.
	There is no disagreement between my party and the Government about the need for robust and foolproof measures. There is, however, a mismatch between us on who should be involved in carrying them out. I was grateful in Committee for the almost support of the Liberal Democrats, who tacitly agree that a unified border force should be the ultimate goal. Although their ideas may not run along identical tracks to ours, they seem to be somewhat closer to our view than the Government's. I ask the Government again why this is so. It is abundantly clear from the Minister's long reply in Committee that huge efforts are having to be made to ensure that the police are working not as an integral part of the border agency but at a tangent to it. The Minister referred to a senior chief constable being a member of the UK Border Agency's board. He also told us that 280 police officers had been seconded to local immigration teams,
	"up and down our country".—[Official Report, 25/2/09; col. 213.]
	However, this is a tiny part of what needs to be done in a united and cohesive way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, conducted a detailed inquiry for David Cameron into the safety and security of our borders. It is a published document of which I am sure the Home Office, if not the Minister, has had sight. Although a little time has passed since it was produced, the noble Lord's observations remain relevant today. He said that,
	"failure to take this opportunity to bring all the services involved in securing the border together in a single agency carries several challenges".
	I will not go into all the challenges that the noble Lord mentioned, but it is worth citing a few: the lack of a comprehensive overarching strategy; inefficiency in the sharing of information and the development of intelligence; a focus on narrow issues that have an impact on the work of individual agencies rather than a focus on the overall UK border security effort; and the inefficient use of resources, both human and financial. He concluded in this part of his report:
	"The creation of a single border agency responsible for all immediate tasks required to secure the borders should provide a positive public perception of the services being provided and improve confidence in the efforts being made to protect national wellbeing, and in the Government's ability to exercise proper control. Equally important, a more coherent, comprehensive and robust regime should also have a similar effect in terms of deterring criminal activity".
	I am sure that no one in this House would disagree with him.
	Although we are not entirely reliant on his conclusions, my party strongly believes that, in the piecemeal reform that is before us again today, the Government have missed the opportunity to bring about a totally coherent system to protect our borders.
	Finally, my other amendments would require consultation with other bodies before additional functions were included among those listed. They recognise that this is a developing field. Those who want to breach our border controls are constantly devising new ways of doing so. This will never be a static situation.
	Whether or not we continue this debate in the House today, it will continue largely because of this missed opportunity in the Bill. We have today rushed through provisions against the background of a shadow organisation that has already been set up. The detailed consultation on this should continue. The Government are making a mistake in not ensuring that the border police are the force of our borders but at some stage it will come about. I beg to move.
	Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1)
	 Moved by Lord Avebury
	2: Before Clause 1, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
	"(2) The UK border police force shall have the functions of—
	(a) protecting UK borders;
	(b) strengthening frontier protection against threats to the security, social and economic integrity and environment of the United Kingdom;
	(c) preventing and detecting human trafficking; and
	(d) maintaining and improving a safe, ordered and secure environment in ports."

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness's concluding remark that there is a need for more consultation. I hope, as a result of the discussions we had in Committee and the ones we are going to have this afternoon, that that will be the next step in thinking about a unified border force. As the noble Baroness has already said, this was the first amendment that we discussed in Committee and it would be remarkable if anybody had anything radically new to say about it—we spent, I think, an hour and three-quarters debating it and the Minister dealt thoroughly with Clause 1 and gave a general review of how Part 1 will operate. We all agreed that the protection of our borders is of vital national interest; the noble Baroness reiterated this proposition in her speech.
	The two main themes of the Minister's response were, first, that the police were already working very closely with the border force at every level and, secondly, that the amendments—both the ones tabled by the Conservatives and ours—left many issues that needed to be resolved. For example, who will be the head of the unified force? Should that person be a chief constable? Who will be responsible for the discipline of the police to be added to the force? Will the IPCC or some other body have jurisdiction over complaints against those officers? Will the police in the unifying force cover protection of the infrastructure of the counterterrorism force and general crime and disorder there? We take a different view from the Conservatives, as I tried to explain in Committee. While we share the long term objective that there should be a unifying force, we look at Part 1 as being an important step towards that ultimate goal. We were encouraged that nowhere in his lengthy remarks did the Minister query that proposition in principle.
	Our two main objections to the noble Baroness's amendment were that some of the functions that the Tories wanted to give their UK border police force went beyond the protection of our borders and the issues involving employers of illegal immigrants and the internal policing of human trafficking, extending into matters that were the result of the failure to protect our borders adequately but were not about present day protection of those borders. As I also mentioned in that debate, there is the vital question of how the unified border force will operate in Scotland, where the police come under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. From the inquiries that I have made via Scottish Lib Dem colleagues, the matter has not been discussed by the Scottish Parliament and, if for no other reason than that, it would be premature to make decisions here that took their agreement for granted.
	In our previous debate, the Minister said that the Government intend to pursue a phased approach to the enhancement of our border security. The approach will concentrate on counterterrorism, including joint operations between the police and the border force, and intelligence sharing between them. He referred to measures in the Policing and Crime Bill, which deal in particular with security at airports. I have read Clause 76 of, and Schedule 6 to, that Bill and did not see anything that reads across into the matters with which we are dealing under this Bill. I do not question the Minister's assurance that there will be close co-ordination between the police and the border force, but it would be interesting to hear more about what he called the "even more practical improvements" that emerged from the conference being held on the same day as our debate, 25 February.
	As we see it, the Government are taking the pragmatic view that the Immigration Service and HMRC need time to digest the far-reaching changes that are being imposed in Part 1 and to explore with the police any non-statutory arrangements that can be made for the closer collaboration that is necessary and desirable between them. However, at the same time, they are not ruling out the creation of a unified border force to bring in the police at a later date. If it can be shown that that is the most effective way to protect our borders, that will be the way to go. We accept that challenge and will seek to launch our own study to see how far we can get ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities to agree on what the next step should be. In the mean time, we do not intend to press our amendment to a Division.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I support my noble friend's Amendment 2, as an amendment to Amendment 1, because it is preferable to Amendment 1 as proposed by the Conservatives. The whole attitude is different: it is positive and constructive. Our first proposal in the amendment is for the UK border police force to protect UK borders, which is important. The Conservative amendment first proposes,
	"detecting and removing illegal overstayers".
	That is a sort of Alf Garnett approach, suggesting a desire to grab headlines, such as "Tories want to see overstayers expelled" and that sort of thing. Our approach is more rational, progressive and constructive. If there is a vote—I do not think that there will be—I would say that the Liberal Democrat amendment is far superior to that of the Conservatives.

Lord Dear: My Lords, in rising to speak to these amendments, I do not intend, with your Lordships' agreement, to get involved in a party-political spat. I want to comment on the place of the police within a border agency. I spoke on this in Committee on 25 February, when I supported a single all-embracing border agency, as outlined in the Stevens report, to which reference has already been made today. As I said at the time, that would ensure a number of things. It would ensure that effective counterterrorism measures could be taken. It would confidently allow us to combat other serious and organised crime, and prevent the importation of illegal drugs, illegal weapons and people trafficking. It would try to do quite a lot to prevent smuggling and protect the UK tax base. It would protect us against illegal immigration in all its forms and certainly would address environmental control and protection issues.
	Significantly, I said at that time that the Association of Chief Police Officers supports the concept of a single agency, including the police within such a border agency. The Minister challenged that view at cols. 214-15 of the Official Report on 25 February 2009. I repeat today that it is the stated view of ACPO that it supports a single agency, including the police within that body. I checked immediately after the Committee stage and found that I was right. I checked as recently as this morning in a lengthy telephone conversation with the president of ACPO, and nothing has changed between 25 February and today.
	I will take your Lordships quickly through the stages to remove any doubt. In the summer of 2007, ACPO asked one of its number, Assistant Chief Constable John Donlon, the national co-ordinator for ports policing, to produce a report, and he did so in the summer of 2007. The report was entitled Border Policing—Options for Change. The options that were investigated ranged from the formation of a fully integrated, single border agency right through to no change at all. The stated objective was for,
	"a single border agency bringing together all agencies operating at the border, including the police, into one truly integrated organisation".
	In November 2007, the Cabinet Office carried out its own border review and published the results. It recommended the UK Border Agency, which ruled out the inclusion of the police. ACPO was anxious to work with the grain of government, against its now stated policy, and was anxious to make the best of the concept of the UK Border Agency, as included in the Bill. In other words, it was going to make the best of an indifferent job. I hasten to add that "the best of an indifferent job" are my words, and not ACPO's.
	ACPO then asked John Donlon to produce a second report. He produced that report, entitled Border Policing—The Next Step, in July 2008. I draw your Lordships' attention to the strapline to that report:
	"A paper to inform discussion on modernising police structures in the light of Cabinet Office Border Review recommendations".
	It recommended the establishment of a single national police force to police ports and airports in this country, working alongside and with the newly envisaged UKBA. In other words, there would be a national police force covering the ports and there would be the new UK Border Agency. ACPO deserves praise for that. It was co-operating with the Government, as one would hope, and it was, significantly, willing to give up a good deal of its own operational responsibility, manpower, budgetary base, and so on, to create that force.
	It was not a change of preference. Its stated preference is still to espouse the single agency that has been mentioned already by the two noble Lords who have spoken before me. We should declare the aim of having a single border agency that includes the police. That would, of course take time, step by step, stage by stage. It cannot happen overnight. To fail to declare a single, all-inclusive border agency as an aim is to go off at half cock and is, in many ways, waste of time and effort. It is a scrambled opportunity; it misses a golden opportunity. I certainly support what both previous speakers have said on this subject.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, I, too, strongly support the aim of the United Kingdom border police force being part of the UK Border Agency. I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Trafficking of Women and Children. One reason is that the proposals of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats would include the UK border police force having the function of preventing and detecting human trafficking, which is to be seen nowhere else—as far as I know—in any policy requirement. I am in no way suggesting that the police around the country do not do their best, but they are doing it in different areas. It is extremely important to have a border police force with the specific duty and responsibility of preventing and detecting human trafficking. For that reason in particular, and for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, I support both amendments. Since it looks as though only one will be put to a Division, I will support it.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to the proposal from both of the Front Benches opposite for exactly the same reasons as those expressed by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. If the Government could assure us that they will right this particular aspect, one which particularly horrifies us—we know how many trafficked people, particularly women and children, are in the country but not accounted for—by stating it explicitly in the Bill, I might then have second thoughts. However, I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Dear and have considerable sympathy with his view. I look forward with hope and expectancy to the Minister's response.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, I suppose I should declare that I have some slight experience of crossing borders unnoticed in one way or the other, which is the nicest way I can put it. I hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said by the noble and learned Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dear. Our country needs the tightest regulation and rules, as well as a concerted effort being made by one force. I detect from the Government's present view that they are being a little wishy-washy about a real border protection force. I therefore support the speakers who have gone before me and I hope that the Minister will be tough and positive about this.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for their explanation of why these amendments have been tabled. I am in no doubt whatever that everyone in this Chamber believes in strong borders for all the reasons we have given about their importance to the security of this nation. Moreover, I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that we are not in the least bit wishy-washy; far from it. Indeed, we are being forceful in establishing the border arrangements, and the basis on which we are going forward is an indication of that.
	We discussed the noble Baroness's proposals at length in Committee, when I had to go through a whole raft of clause stand part Motions which I have to admit was rather over-long. I set out then the reasons I felt that we are going in the right direction and that the proposals in the amendments were not the right approach. I have to reiterate those reasons. We are not at all clear about exactly what is meant when talking about a single police border force, and the sheer complexity of it would be great. The noble Baroness referred to the complicated arrangements set out in the Bill to form the border force we have proposed. When you are in government and trying to make something work both administratively and operationally, it is a highly complex exercise. Just to say in loose terms, "Let's have a border police force and shove them in with it", begs certain questions. What are the functions, who should be put into the force, who should the leadership of the organisation be—a police officer or a civil servant?—to whom would it be accountable, issues of devolution and huge issues of funding—would it require top-slicing and how would it be done? These are extremely complicated and difficult questions.
	This was looked at in the Cabinet Office report, Security in a Global Hub, to try and deliver practical improvements to border security as a result of the attacks in 2007. Having looked at the complexities and difficulties, the Cabinet Office decided that having a single border police force was not the way ahead at the time. It did reach that decision because it would have been happy with something less good, but because there are real and practical ways of going about these things. Certainly, what we are doing is practical and will work. We have a responsibility and a duty to back up our policy proposals with well-thought-through provisions, which these are. I know that the noble Baroness seemed to think that they were a bit rushed, but they are not. For a Government, we are moving quickly, but we are not rushing.
	Indeed, we already have the border force in place and working to some rather ad hoc rules, with work-arounds—that is not the way to do it—to achieve what we are saying we want to do. We need to get it on a proper basis; that is why the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill provide the necessary legal framework to build on the earlier successes of our border force and ensure that the officers and staff have the powers that they need to do their job effectively in the modern world. The measures in Part 1 complete the job of laying the foundations, where we have already started that work.
	We have already taken important steps to enhance border security, but we need the provisions in Part 1 to complete that process. There is, therefore, a time issue, which is why it is important to move this quickly. I explained why we have not left this to later legislation; we want to get this in place and working for the security of the nation, so that we can have it fully in place and completely working by September. Without these provisions, we will not be able to transfer to the border force officers from HMRC who are currently engaged in customs controls.
	I shall say a little more about policing. I have already mentioned that we had a long debate about this before today, and on the proposal to create a new border police force we have really heard nothing to persuade us that our approach is wrong. It is a highly complex thing to do. The judgment within the Cabinet meeting was that this is not the right way to go. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, talked about the ACPO position; all I would say there is that it seems to fluctuate a bit. As the noble Lord made clear, we have talked to ACPO at length. I have talked to a number of people within ACPO—a number of chief constables—and there are various views about this. The APA has a different view. There are a number of different views about this because it is so complex and hard to know exactly how to go ahead.
	Our bottom-line judgement remains that we have not seen a compelling case as to the operational benefits to be derived for setting up a new national border police force, when we set them against the potentially significant costs, which are probably real, and a number of drawbacks involved. I do not believe that we have heard noble Lords articulating such a compelling case. It seems superficially attractive, and is easily said, but if you have to be there to implement it would not be quite so straightforward or so clear-cut that it will work as well as has been said.
	In Committee, I set out to your Lordships our approach to enhancing significantly the already close working relationship between the police and the border force. The noble Baroness may not have said that it was at arm's length, but she gave the feeling that it was not close, but it is a very close relationship and works well. We are trying to make it even better. Indeed, ACPO is helping us on this and I am grateful for its work there. We have a very firm platform to build on. I think of the creation, within the past few years, of the police counterterrorism network, and of dedicated regional assets closely linked to local Special Branches, which gives quite a lot of flexibility—particularly to the local chief constables. We will take steps to enhance border policing within that network and to improve standards, consistency and co-ordination. So, I believe that it is good and getting better.
	Yesterday, the government strategy known as CONTEST came out. It is the first time that we have set out, in a public document, a detailed account of the history of the threat from international terrorism, the impact that has had on the UK, our understanding of its causes and our view of its likely direction. The current threat of international terrorism remains "severe", meaning that an attack is highly likely. A key part of the strategy is ensuring the security of our borders. I am delighted, as I have said, that all noble Lords who have spoken absolutely see that, understand it and support it.
	The CONTEST strategy sets out steps that we are taking to improve our protection. The Memorandum of Understanding between the border agency and the Association of Chief Police Officers is an important part of that. We will continue with our e-Borders work and biometric visa programme; we will improve our capacity to detect, deter and intercept radiological material, as I mentioned yesterday. That will all be done by the new border force.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what happened at the conference referred to in Committee on 25 February. I was not there myself, but I understand that it was a very useful meeting between senior police, the border force and Home Office officials. They discussed quite a lot of the detail on some of the proposals to improve standards and national co-ordination. There is no doubt that we are improving intelligence sharing. They are going to meet again in April to go the next step further. In a sense, these things are still living; I would never say that never in future would we ever say we are not going to have a border police force. Perhaps conditions will change and we will see things differently but, at the moment, it is not the appropriate thing to do. It is much more important that we achieve what we are achieving here, which is something that is achievable and practical and will absolutely enhance the security of our borders and, therefore, our nation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the Policing and Crime Bill. There are provisions to assist with collaboration between police forces in that Bill, which is presently in the other place. It also refers to airport security.
	The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to trafficking. I cannot put something in this Bill on that issue, but I absolutely understand the full horror of trafficking and how important it is. Later in the Bill, when it comes to children, this subject will again be mentioned. What I certainly will do is consider whether there is some measure that could be reflected within the new border force, because this is a very high priority for everyone. I shall see what can be done in that sense.
	We will not or do not intend to create a new national border police force. Our energies and those of the police and the border force are much better put to delivering increased protection through the steps that we have outlined, rather than stretching out towards a rather vaguely articulated position, with all sorts of implications that we do not understand, which may or may not be workable in practice. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for not ruling out the ultimate creation of a unified border force on the lines proposed by both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in their strategy documents. We have accepted the arguments that the Minister advanced, both in Committee and this afternoon, for not proceeding with the proposal at this stage.
	We listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said. It was interesting that ACPO revised its position following the publication of the Cabinet Office report in July 2007 and came round to the view that it should, for the time being, rule out the creation of a unified force. The Minister rather unfairly said that its position seemed to fluctuate when what it had done was to try to accommodate itself to official government policy. It would be interesting to know whether ACPO has any response to the objections that have been ventilated thoroughly, for an hour and a half in Committee and now for 35 minutes on Report, on why this is not the appropriate time to proceed with a unified border force.
	We welcome what the Minister said about the progress made at the conference on 25 February. Will he kindly place any outcome of that conference in the Library so we can all have a look at it? If we can see that the arrangements that are being made between the police and the border force are such as to promote this ever-closer co-operation, which everybody wants to see, to deal with the menace of trafficking and drug importation and to counter the threat of illegal immigration, we will all have achieved the result that we wanted, even if we have not reached the ultimate goal of a unified force at this stage. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1) withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. It has provided an extra dimension to what is in the Bill, or perhaps a different view of what should be there. I am enormously grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, whose great expertise on this subject I value highly. His contributions, both today and in Committee, have been extremely effective.
	I am grateful also for the tacit support of the Liberal Democrats. We are running along the same tram lines, although they may diverge slightly. I am not so happy with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, which underplayed the importance of what we are proposing. As I have made clear, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that our borders are secure—there is no difference on that between any of us in the Chamber. What we are trying to demonstrate is that there is a missing ingredient in the Bill.
	We have had two good debates on this matter. It is clear that the Government are not going to move at this stage. I am still of the view that there is a missing link in the proposals being put forward by the Government. The Minister said that there was a great deal of complexity in what has been done. It would be a pity if all of it had to be redone in order to put into the Bill, in a full and committed way, the police element.
	I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for contributing. This is a debate that will be returned to in time: it will not go away, because it is of such fundamental importance to how we ensure that we in this country are secure, and that the movement of people and the trafficking of goods across our borders are properly managed and well understood. I do not suggest that they are not; I suggest that we can enhance them.
	I have no intention of testing the opinion of the House today. I thank everybody for taking part in the debate and the Minister for contributing twice at considerable length and for sending us a detailed response. Can he say where that response will go? We have had a pile of paper well in excess of what has gone into the Bill in response to all the points made in Committee. It would be a pity if it was all lost, because I am sure that others would value what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 1 withdrawn.
	Clause 1: General customs functions of the Secretary of State
	Amendment 3
	 Moved by Lord West of Spithead
	3: Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after "Commissioners" insert ", or officers of Revenue and Customs,"

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 and 63 are related and I will take them together. I shall speak to government Amendments 3, 4 and 5, which are clarifying amendments.
	We had much debate in Committee about the nature of general customs functions under the Bill. General customs functions include not only the functions exercisable in relation to a general customs matter by the commissioners, but also any functions currently exercisable in relation to those matters by officers of HMRC. Under the Bill, these functions will all come to the UK Border Agency.
	Clause 1 defines general customs matters as those in relation to which the commissioners of HMRC have functions other than those that concern revenue and other excepted matters set out in Clause 1(2). However, some non-revenue customs functions are conferred on customs officers directly, rather than via the commissioners. Examples include the ability of officers to detain unsafe goods on import under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, in order to allow for their inspection by a trading standards officer, and the ability of officers to detain ships under the Public Health (Ships) Regulations 1979 on behalf of port health authorities.
	Of course, it could be argued that, by conferring functions on an officer of HMRC, a statute also confers functions on the commissioners, who, by virtue of the provisions in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, are responsible for directing and supervising the actions of their officers. On balance, though, we think it better to put it beyond doubt that general customs functions include those functions exercisable in relation to general customs matters by the commissioners and by the officers of HMRC, particularly as the term "general customs matter" is also used in Clause 3 to delineate what a designated general customs official may do under the Bill. These amendments simply make it clear that, irrespective of whether a statute confers functions on the commissioners or on their officers, or both, those functions will be fully exercisable by the UK border force in future.
	The purpose of government Amendment 14 is to clarify that the functions of the commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs, which may be exercised concurrently by the Director of Border Revenue under Clause 7(1), do not include those functions that were formerly vested in the commissioners of Inland Revenue.
	It is clear from the overall context of the Bill, particularly given that Clause 7 defines customs revenue matters as those relating to taxes for which the former department of HM Customs and Excise was responsible, that we are conferring only customs-related functions on the UK Border Agency in this Bill. However, we need to make it clear that it is only Section 5(2)(b) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which deals with the functions formerly exercised by the commissioners for HM Customs and Excise, that applies to the Director of Border Revenue. The remainder of Section 5(2) relates to the former functions of the Inland Revenue. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments, although they sound complicated, assist in clarifying the functions that may be exercised by the Secretary of State and by the Director of Border Revenue.
	If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will indulge me, I shall speak to her Amendments 6, 15 and 63 ahead of her. If I understand correctly, the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, have tabled a series of amendments that have at their heart the quite legitimate aim of attempting to further clarify exactly which functions will be exercised by the Secretary of State and the Director of Border Revenue respectively. I hope that that is the aim; if I am wrong, I am sure that the noble Baroness will make that clear to me. Unfortunately, the amendments as drafted will not achieve this aim. As I must therefore resist them, I will explain why.
	We can all agree that the drafting of Part 1 is complex. Amendments 6 and 15 both make reference to the schedule that Amendment 63 proposes, so Amendment 63 provides the real substance of these amendments. As your Lordships can see, Amendment 63 contains two lists: one of customs revenue functions and one of general customs functions. The list of general customs functions included in Amendment 63 attempts to expand on the general functions of the Secretary of State set out in Clause 1. However, the list—I acknowledge that it was supplied to the House by the Government—is far from comprehensive. It was precisely because of the difficulty of drafting a comprehensive list that we have taken the approach that we have in the Bill. The list of customs revenue functions, meanwhile, simply repeats what is already set out in Clause 7(2) of the Bill and is therefore unnecessary.
	Clause 1 defines the functions to be exercised by the Secretary of State by reference to those functions of the commissioners that she may not exercise. I can understand why noble Lords have raised concerns about this, but a careful look at Clause 1 will show that these concerns are misplaced. Let me explain the Government's approach. Taking the functions of HMRC as a whole, we have first excluded all the former Inland Revenue's functions from the definition of general customs functions. We have then excluded any other revenue, duty or tax matter. We have then excluded the functions of the Paymaster-General given to HMRC and the regulatory role of HMRC in controlling money-transfer businesses. Thus the Secretary of State is left with the non-revenue customs, shipping and enforcement functions of HM Revenue and Customs. These are the functions that the commissioners and customs officers exercise in relation to ports and airports, the movement of goods, preventing drug smuggling and the smuggling of other prohibited and restricted goods, and the regulation of trade and shipping.
	We have not set out each and every relevant function in the Bill because the statutes conferring powers and functions on customs officers are many and varied. It would be a very long list and not one that could sensibly be set out in legislation. I shall give some examples. As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, our customs administration is one of the oldest in the world and, as such, many customs functions date back hundreds of years. The Slave Trade Act 1873 gives customs the power to seize a vessel used for the purpose of the slave trade. The Naval Prize Act 1864 provides for customs to take custody of any ship taken as a prize. The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gives customs a role in preventing trading with the enemy. The Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949—that is clipping their ears, not stealing them, I hasten to add—gives customs a role in preventing the import of horses whose tails have been docked.
	In more modern times, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 gives customs a role in ensuring ship safety, requiring production of ships' documents and detaining ships if necessary. As a naval officer, I mention in particular a very important power relating to shipping. If a ship is flying improper colours, a customs officer may board the ship and seize and take away the colours. I could go on. The Chemical Weapons Act 1996, the Rabies Act 1974, the Explosives Act 1875 and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 all give a role to customs in enforcing their provisions. However, I do not believe that there is any need to list them all in the Bill, because all that is left for the Secretary of State, after we have excluded all the revenue and other "inland" work of HMRC, is the appropriate non-revenue customs work. In future, the exercise of all these various functions at ports and airports will be for the border force and not HM Revenue and Customs. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I should like to take a straw poll across the House to determine which noble Lords have understood what the general customs functions and the general revenue functions will be. As he clearly indicated, they are still as opaque as they were originally. I am extremely grateful to him for trying to help us out on the allocation of these functions and their definition, both in the explanation that he gave this afternoon and in the long letter that he sent prior to our laying the amendments.
	However, as I say, I do not think that anything has taken us much further in obtaining transparency about what these duties are. Without referring to several other pieces of legislation, it is still difficult to know what is involved and what the exact functions covered under the general customs functions are and what is covered under those given to the Director of Border Revenue. As we understand it—the Minister has tried to explain this today—the intention is that, as regards the customs matters, only those functions of HMRC that relate to the importation and exportation of goods will be passed to the UK Border Agency and only functions relating to customs and excise duties, agricultural levies and VAT as regards the importation or exportation of goods will pass to the Director of Border Revenue.
	The Minister rather decried the extremely helpful list that he sent, which seemed to me to delineate carefully what those functions will be and what powers are to be passed across. However, unfortunately, the Minister dismissed it as not being very helpful. I am sorry about that because I think that the list—

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I was trying not to dismiss it but I thought that the noble Baroness's amendment was seeking a fully comprehensive list. The list that we have is useful but, as I explained, a fully comprehensive list would constitute a 78-page document and be a bit confusing.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments but I still think that the list that was given to us would be illuminating for anybody who is trying to find their way through this legislation, which we have said all along is opaque and difficult to fathom.
	I am not sure that the slave trade is terribly relevant to the functions that have been passed down at this stage, which are the ones that we are talking about—the legislation relating to what has been passed from HMRC and from the commissioners to the Secretary of State and the Director of Border Revenue. I can only say that I hear what the Minister has said. I am sorry that we cannot get any further with this. That list ought to be somewhere on file, because it would be enormously helpful in the future.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we listened carefully to what the Minister said and we understand that what is now proposed is really quite belt and braces; I think that he used the phrase "put it beyond doubt". The UKBA official or Home Office official who is designated under Clause 3(1) becomes a "general customs official", and under Clause 3(2) he has the same functions in relation to a "general customs matter" as the Secretary of State has under Clause 1(1) or as an HMRC official has as a servant of the commissioners.
	I want to mention one of the noble Lord's letters—I cannot remember precisely which one—and I say, by way of interpolation, that I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said in her concluding remarks. It is really an awful waste for these letters not to see the light of day and I wish that there could be some way in which they could be placed on the web. I made a suggestion when we discussed this shortly before we came into the Chamber, if I may reveal our conversation. On the parliamentary website, you go down to the section under "Bills and Legislation" and you can see the various stages of a Bill and all the amendments. If space could be found on that page to put up the letters from Ministers—

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, all the letters that have been sent are available in the Library. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness are absolutely right that it would be a great shame to lose those, because they will help in the general understanding of why we have arrived at the legislation that we have arrived at.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we recognise that but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pointed out, they are not accessible to the general public. When we look for advice from experts outside, as we normally do, we have to remember to send them copies of these letters so that they can see them. There may be a lot of other practitioners who do not get to see the letters but who would enormously value the advice that they give. The suggestion on the table is that perhaps the Minister could consider how they could be placed on the web so that they would be accessible to a much wider audience than simply this House.
	The Minister's letter referred to Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act, which allows an examining officer to question a person at a port or in the border area, to search the person or his possessions and to take his fingerprints or a DNA sample. This power may be exercised already under the Terrorism Act 2000 by a constable, an immigration officer and a customs officer who is designated for the purpose of Schedule 7 by the Secretary of State and the commissioners. So all immigration officers may conduct an examination under Schedule 7, whether or not they are designated under Clause 3(1), and the Minister could perhaps explain why he singled out this enactment in the letter.
	Perhaps it was because of the discussion that we had on 4 March, when the Minister said that a public consultation was being undertaken on how to bring the S and Marper judgment into effect and that he would put copies of the consultation documents, as well as the interim response to the European Council of Ministers, on the Home Office website. I looked on the Home Office website on Saturday evening and I could not see the material, still less anything about the sensible timescales that the Minister said would be attached to the process. I would be grateful if he would look at that mater.
	The point of raising the matter at this stage is that, as the Minister's letter underlined, the taking of biometric samples under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act is not exclusive to the Special Branch, as in the example that I gave in Committee, but can be done by any immigration or designated customs officer. The fingerprints and DNA samples taken by all those officials are being stored indefinitely, contrary to the judgment mentioned. It is surely very unusual, if not totally unprecedented, to launch a public consultation on how to comply with the law, rectifying the violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The samples have to be destroyed once it becomes clear that the person is not subsequently charged with any criminal offence; that is the principle to which we would invite the Minister to agree now. We are not objecting to Schedule 7 itself, but this may be the only opportunity that we get to point out, as the Minister has done so helpfully in his letter, that thousands of officials have the power to make ordinary passengers give them biometric samples, which are still being retained for ever, three and a half months after that was declared unlawful by the highest court in Europe.
	On government Amendment 14, Clause 7 deals with the customs revenue functions of the commissioners, which are exercisable concurrently by the Director of Border Revenue in relation to a customs revenue matter, as defined in subsections (2) and (3). I interrupt myself to say that we had a very encouraging response from the Minister when we suggested that there should be a schedule of definitions attached to the Bill, as in the draft Bill that was published in July 2008. It would be useful to know whether the Minister has given further thought to that since we discussed it offline, as it were. The functions in question are those conferred on the commissioners by,
	"an enactment passed ... before the end of the session".
	The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 deals with those functions of the commissioners that had formerly been vested in the commissioners of Inland Revenue. If those functions did not relate to any customs revenue matter, they would not have been covered by this clause, and I am wondering why it is necessary to spell out the provisions of the 2005 Act that are included in Clause 7(7), when they must be sufficiently defined already. Is the 2005 Act the only legislation that deals with HMRC commissioners' powers over both customs revenue matters and other functions, where it might be necessary to make the distinctions between the two?
	The Conservative amendments would insert new definitions of "customs revenue" function and "general customs" function into a schedule, but something has gone wrong with the quotation marks in the amendment. The terms defined should be plural, but no doubt this is how they were in the document circulated by the Minister—they were copied verbatim from a document that perhaps was not drafted very thoroughly. In the Bill, each of the terms is defined as a function exercisable in relation to the corresponding matter, conferred by specified enactments enumerated in the corresponding clause. The matters are then defined separately. The Conservative amendments condense these matters into two lists that are much shorter than the two lists in the Bill—as in the Minister's letter but, no doubt, at the expense of some precision, as the Minister has said. For example, the customs revenue function list includes all excise duties, while some are purposely excluded in Clause 7(2)(e), such as lottery duty or pool betting duty, presumably because they have nothing to do with our borders.
	On reading the explanation in the Minister's letter, I thought that it might be useful to have a Venn diagram showing the overlapping functions and responsibilities. We look forward to seeing the promised partnership agreement between UKBA and HMRC, but we would also welcome a visual presentation that might help to convince us that the complicated structure of Part 1 is unavoidable.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, may I take away the issue of the letters and how we may make them available to the public? I will look at it to see what would be feasible to have on a website, but I shall need advice on what we are able to do.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the list. I tried to explain how complex the list would be if it covered everything. The problem is that a list would be illustrative only and having an illustrative list is not the right thing to do in legislation. It would not be a good way forward.
	On fingerprints, DNA and whatever, the Government are completely committed to a public consultation on how they respond to the judgment in S v Marper and will inform the House when it is launched. If I get a heads up about when it is coming up, I will let noble Lords who have taken part in this debate know, but I am not aware of the date yet.
	Schedule 7 was teased out in my letter because of the discussion we had. That is why I particularly put it in.
	The necessity to specify parts of the CRCA 2005 is because we have excluded application of that Act generally, but we need to apply certain provisions of it specifically, such as the example given by the noble Lord relating to the commissioner's functions. That is why we have done that. It looks strange, but that is the reason behind it. I think the noble Lord said that I said that we would put something on the website about this. May I look in Hansard, see exactly what was said and come back when I have taken advice about what I can do?
	I appreciate the motivation behind all these amendments. I hope I have explained why I do not feel that they are appropriate. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments and ask the House to accept the Government's amendments.
	Amendment 3 agreed.
	Amendments 4 and 5
	 Moved by Lord West of Spithead
	4: Clause 1, page 2, line 19, after "section" insert "—(a)"
	5: Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after "applies" insert ";
	(b) to functions of officers of Revenue and Customs are to functions conferred by an enactment to which section 3 (designation of general customs officials) applies."
	Amendments 4 and 5 agreed.
	Amendment 6 not moved.
	Clause 3: Designation of general customs officials
	Amendment 7
	 Moved by Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
	7: Clause 3, page 3, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	"(a) any officer transferred to the UK Border Agency from HM Revenue and Customs,
	(b) any UK Border Agency employee recruited for that specific purpose,"

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 7, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 9 to 12 and 16 to 18. In particular, I shall speak to the elements relating to the possible dilution of skills of the workforce. My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden will cover the elements relating to the powers of the Secretary of State to designate officials.
	These amendments were requested by the Public and Commercial Services Union because it has fears about the dilution of the skills in the workforce under the Government's proposals, which it believes could lead to less effective border controls, and the Secretary of State's power to designate officials. The PCS considers,
	"that separate bodies, with separate specialisms"—
	as we have at present—
	"exercising separate powers, but in a complimentary way makes for the most professional border controls".
	It fears,
	"that spreading powers will lead to diluted skills".
	It believes that:
	"Effective co-ordination between public authorities at the border is recognised as vital in the fight against trafficking. For such co-ordination to be most productive, it has to draw together specific expertise in a complementary way".
	The union states that it,
	"strongly believes that government policy on the creation of a unified border force militates against effective border security for two main reasons: at present, with three sequential control points there are three opportunities for detection and intelligence purposes, with passenger and vehicular traffic potentially subject to three checks by immigration, police and customs officers at points of entry. Currently these checks are separate and sequential, allowing each organisation the chance to display their skills and experience to tackle trafficking. Our experience has shown that each intervention has yielded intelligence and concrete results in dealing with human trafficking. The proposed reduction to a single primary line may reduce the barriers at the border to one and accordingly reduce the deterrent and interceptive effect of three separate controls".
	The union believes that complementary skills of three trained and experienced groups of specialists—immigration officers, customs officers and police—are not likely to be matched by one officer attempting to fulfil a variety of roles. The PCS's view is that,
	"effective co-ordination of separate organisations presents a much tougher barrier to human and goods trafficking than the reduced presence and deskilling as a result of a single border force".

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendments. As she rightly says, we have been approached by the Public and Commercial Services Union, which is concerned about certain aspects of the Bill. As my noble friend said, I want to talk about the power of the Secretary of State to designate officials as set out in the Bill. The union states:
	"These clauses widen the definition of who is able to carry out immigration and customs functions. If 'officials of the Secretary of State' can include people from outside the civil service then contractors could be used to carry out all the functions described in the Bill. In previous legislation powers have been specifically designated to immigration officers, customs officers or the police".
	The wording in the Bill therefore, according to the union,
	"provides the government with the means to privatise all functions to which the designated powers apply".
	I and the union have grave concerns about the clause. The union states:
	"PCS believe that if low paid contract workers, without the benefits of civil service pay and terms and conditions carry out this work then they will be more open to criminal inducements. This argument was accepted by previous Ministers when used by PCS in defence of members' jobs in freight searching, which were under threat of privatisation by the previous Immigration and Nationality Act".
	Furthermore, the wording in the clauses states,
	"may be permanent or for a specified period".
	In other words, you could well have temporary contract workers performing immigration functions. That would not be in the public interest either. Rightly, it would not be in anyone's interest to have those important jobs done by people who are quite inadequately trained, which could very well be the situation if we had temporary contract workers doing those jobs.
	Why are the proposals in the Bill? Why is there an attempt to widen the definition? I hope that we will not be told that the job will be done more efficiently through contracting-out or privatisation. I would not find it at all acceptable if it were intended to do it more cheaply. We must not accept such an argument in regard to this very important function. I am sure that that is not the idea behind the wording, but it could well be believed to be by the union, and that is a bad situation.
	I support my noble friend's amendment and await with interest the Government's response.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, it is by joining up our powers, assets, skills and people in one organisation that we can increase our flexibility, strengthen border security and improve our capacity to facilitate legitimate trade and the movement of people. While I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Turner I want to explain why I believe they are not appropriate.
	The amendments would prevent the Secretary of State and the Director of Border Revenue designating immigration officers and other existing officials of the UK Border Agency as customs officials. They would also reduce the agency's operational flexibility by removing the ability to make and to vary designations according to business needs. I should point out straightaway that Clauses 3 and 4 do not permit the Secretary of State to designate contractors as general customs officials; contractors are not officials of the Secretary of State for the purposes of these provisions. I assure my noble friends that that is not the intention and it will not happen.
	By not allowing other designations, however, this would prevent the full integration of customs and immigration functions within the new border force and it would jeopardise delivery of a unified customs primary checkpoint, as recommended by the Cabinet Secretary's report, Security in a Global Hub. My noble friend talked about not having the same number of barriers. We now have a first line of the border force which is abroad, where the visa agency used to be. We will monitor all of that, and in future there will be e-Borders as well. The second line is the full development of e-Borders, targeting based on PNR and intelligence and the line of people at the port itself.
	Combining immigration and customs powers in the hands of our officials will enable us to improve the breadth and depth of protection at our borders. It will mean greater operational flexibility for the agency to deploy its staff better. Over time staff can be redeployed quickly to manage effectively any change in the nature or scale of the threats that we face. That is often very intelligence-based. The agency can cover more locations and respond to a greater number of threats. The approach will bring benefits for our staff too. As a consequence of our proposals, some roles will broaden as we develop an integrated approach to the front line, providing opportunities to learn new skills, take on new responsibilities and have wider career paths.
	We will be careful to ensure that we do not lose the strong capabilities that exist in HM Revenue and Customs and the former Border and Immigration Agency and UKvisas. Accordingly, in some areas, specialisms will be retained. The UK Border Agency was created because it represents the best model to secure the border. We will aim to retain good practice where it already exists. Rather than dilute the skills, Part 1 will enhance the capabilities of our border force officers.
	The new legislation will make sure officers have all the powers, tools, equipment and training that they need to carry out passport and customs controls at the borders. That training will provide them with the instruction and skills appropriate and necessary to allow them to exercise the full range of their functions. I hope that my noble friends will be reassured to know that we have kept trade unions across all affected departments updated as we have taken our proposals forward. The national body, the Council of Civil Service Unions, was consulted by the Cabinet Office review team during the preparation of its report, Security in a Global Hub.
	We continue to build on this involvement as a key part of the implementation process and regular meetings are held with the recognised trade unions. Any proposed changes that might impact on jobs or terms and conditions will be subject to full consultation with those unions. We need every man and woman that we have to ensure the safety of our borders. This is certainly not some hidden way of trying to reduce numbers.
	In summary, the Bill is intended to increase the flexibility to deploy UKBA officers and officials where they are most needed and to build on existing skills and manpower. We do not envisage reducing the number of personnel at the border in any way. Rather, we intend to deploy people on the basis of intelligence in the most appropriate way, given their skills to meet the threats that we face. The amendments would prevent the flexible deployment of the agency's staff and would impact on its ability to deliver the broader and deeper coverage of our borders that the Bill is intended to achieve. While I understand exactly where the amendments come from, I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friends that the unions need have no fear in this area and we will not be employing temporary staff as they are not covered by this. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full reply and for his reassurances about contractors and border controls. I was heartened to hear that the workforce will be borne in mind for new skills and responsibilities and that there will be consultation with the unions as things progress. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 7 withdrawn.
	Amendment 8 not moved.
	Clause 4: Designation: supplementary
	Amendments 9 to 12 not moved.
	Clause 6: The Director of Border Revenue
	Amendment 13
	 Moved by Baroness Hanham
	13: Clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"( ) A designation made under this section must be approved by both Houses of Parliament."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in Committee we discussed what the Director of Border Revenue would do and who that person would be. It became apparent that, for the moment at least, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency is the person on whom the Secretary of State's hand has fallen to become the Director of Border Revenue, so we have two senior roles in one. As things stand, none of this needs to be approved by anybody other than the Secretary of State.
	I made it clear then as now that I have no objection to the person who has been appointed as Director of Border Revenue—she is a distinguished chief executive of the UK Border Agency—but I have concerns with the principle of what is happening. If the Secretary of State is, on each occasion, going to put her hand on the chief executive of the UK Border Agency and make that person the Director of Border Revenue, we ought to make that clear. It ought to be assumed to be part and parcel of the UK Border Agency chief executive's role and Parliament needs to know about that.
	If that is not going to be the situation and, as time passes, new people are appointed and the Secretary of State no longer thinks that the chief executive of the UK Border Agency should be the Director of Border Revenue, then those two positions part and you have two senior people in two different roles. If that is the situation, one of two things must happen. Either there has to be a full and transparent appointments process under the Nolan principles, whereby people put their names forward as an applicant for this post, whether they are in the department or not, or Parliament has to approve in some way the person who is going to be appointed. There are several ways of doing this. It can be done by a Select Committee, by the Treasury Select Committee, by a report to Parliament or even by appointment by Members of Parliament. This post has a significant job to do controlling the revenue brought into this country or claimed at the ports and it carries a big customs role as well. We need to make it clear that this post cannot for ever more be designated by the Secretary of State. That is the reason for this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we do not think that it would be appropriate for the Director of Border Revenue to be approved by both Houses of Parliament but we understand that, as the noble Baroness said, this is really a vehicle allowing us to discuss what will happen in the future when Lin Homer has disappeared from the scene. We know, because the Government said so when we dealt with the appointment in Committee, that Lin Homer is going to be appointed, doubling as head of the UKBA and ensuring that the two functions are joined from the top down. The Bill does not actually provide that the chief executive of the UKBA will always be the same person as the Director of Border Revenue. However, as the Minister told us in Committee that the intention was that they would always be one and the same person, I merely wonder why that is not in the Bill.
	At some time in the future when the post becomes vacant—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has hypothesised about this—the Minister said that it would be possible to fill it through an open competition under Civil Service rules on the basis that the chief executive would also be the Director of Border Revenue. His wording indicated that other scenarios might be being contemplated, which may account for the absence of any reference to the accommodation of the post in the Bill. Assuming that it is envisaged that, in some remote circumstance and at some future date, two different individuals could occupy the posts, how would the department's wider strategic objectives for a unified operation and management command of the UK's border forces be achieved? We remain uncertain of the future, because this is not in the Bill, and we would like to learn more from the Minister now.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, it is anticipated that the Director of Border Revenue and the chief executive of the border force will be the same person. I am not sure why that cannot be in the Bill. I will take that away, because I see no reason why it should not be. That is absolutely the intention, because it provides a single management chain of command—the noble Lord alluded to this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—within the border force over customs revenue functions, customs non-revenue functions and immigration functions. I am about to be told why we cannot put this into the Bill—I have been handed some great long sheet—but I do not see why we cannot. I will have another look at this.
	The Director of Border Revenue, who has a statutory responsibility for customs revenue functions, will act independently of Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is absolutely right about that. That is how it should be. However, like Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Director of Border Revenue will be subject to general directions from the Treasury. It is absolutely appropriate that, in selecting this person, the Home Secretary should fit within the structure of deciding who will come into this job, but she will do so in conjunction with the Treasury, so there will be Treasury agreement at the same time.
	The amendment would give Parliament the right of veto over the designation of the director. To require the Bill to state that the designation process is subject to parliamentary approval would be a very unusual and inappropriate step. Under the Bill as it is currently drafted, the Secretary of State is required, before designating a person as director, to obtain the consent of the Treasury, as I said. This reflects the Treasury's important interest in running the agency. Ultimately, the Secretary of State is also accountable to Parliament both for her choice of director, if she gets it wrong and the director does things wrong, and for the wider running of the border force.
	It is interesting that, following the publication of the Governance of Britain White Paper, the Government have agreed that some key public appointments—mainly of ombudsmen, complaint investigators and those with inspection roles—should be subject to pre-appointment Select Committee hearings. The arrangements for these appointments are set out in much more detail in the Governance of Britain White Paper. The aim is to provide further reassurance that government appointments to roles such as those are made on merit and are properly independent of the Executive.
	The Government agreed this approach and the list of posts that are suitable for pre-appointment scrutiny with the Liaison Committee. Civil Service posts such as that of the Director of Border Revenue are not suitable for this form of pre-appointment scrutiny, as they are not intended to be independent of the Executive. Indeed, they should not be independent of the Executive. If the post of chief executive of the UK Border Agency were to become vacant, we would fill the post by open competition under Civil Service open-competition rules on the basis that the post holder would also be the Director of Border Revenue, and the Home Secretary would have the final say about whether that person would work for her. The person may, for example, not get on with her.
	On this basis, I hope the noble Lord and the noble Baroness agree that the amendment is unnecessary. I have not read the two pages of close written stuff, saying why we cannot possibly put it in the Bill. May I go away and have a look at that to talk with the staff? If at all possible, I would like to put it in the Bill but if there is some real reason why I cannot then maybe I could come back to her on that point.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and his robustness to the message from the Box; that is always enormously helpful when a Minister is likely to take a different view.
	This needs transparency. Even the Minister was talking almost as if these were two roles and two different people. It is clear—and I think the Minister accepts this point—that, if you are going to refer to the position as "the UK Border Agency chief executive (Director of Border Revenue)", the Secretary of State cannot designate an official in the department to be that person. That does not stand up. It does not make sense. The Secretary of State is not going to designate the UK Border Agency chief executive because that is clearly a matter that is open to at least competition or some form of selection; the Director of the Border Revenue is subject to that as well. It is not subject to a designation. The pretence that this is going to be a different person needs to be resolved.
	By the Third Reading, I hope the Minister may have found a way of resolving this unfinished business. We need to make clear who we are talking about rather than try to pretend that this is a separate person with a separate level of responsibilities. I appreciate that the Director of Border Revenue has responsibilities. They are clear and probably different to, but included in, the position of the chief executive of the UK Border Agency. This is misleading and misleading legislation is bad legislation. Therefore, I hope the Minister will find a way of correcting that by the Bill's next stage. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 13 withdrawn.
	Clause 7 : Customs revenue functions of the Director
	Amendment 14
	 Moved by Lord West of Spithead
	14: Clause 7, page 6, line 10, leave out "(2)" and insert "(2)(b)"
	Amendment 14 agreed.
	Amendment 15 not moved.
	Clause 11 : Designation of customs revenue officials
	Amendment 16 not moved.
	Clause 12 : Designation: supplementary
	Amendments 17 to 18 not moved.
	Amendment 19
	 Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
	19: Clause 12, page 8, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) "Adequate training" means training that provides a designated customs official with all the instruction and skills appropriate and necessary to exercise the customs revenue functions conferred on him fully and properly."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we return to the matter of training; in Committee we talked about what adequate training would be and we are still concerned that there is no definition of it in the Bill. When the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, moved her amendment, she talked of some of the fears of the unions about deskilling. This goes to the heart of what we are trying to do with getting a better definition of adequate training in the Bill. The wording that we have chosen to use for this definition is the wording that the Minister himself used to define it in Committee when he said:
	"For training to be deemed adequate, the definition is that it must provide a designated customs official with all the instruction and skills appropriate and necessary to exercise the customs revenue functions conferred on them fully and properly.".—[Official Report, 25/2/09; col. 249.]
	That was a very helpful comment but we feel it would be more helpful to define it in the Bill.
	The Minister, earlier this afternoon, explained some of the customs' functions: that of taking away the colours from ships, that of nicking horses in the proper sense, the functions to do with fish and, on the revenue side, the checking of taxes and so on. These are all vastly different. So staff from both functions will do very different work.
	We were not fully satisfied with the depth of explanation given in Committee. Mention was made of 14 weeks' training. I have reread what was said, but I am still not fully clear on whether that refers to 14 weeks on-the-job training. Clearly, it would not be 14 weeks of nothing but training. It is not clear how much of each day will be spent on training or even what the criteria for successfully passing the training will be. It was said that training will be delivered by trainers accredited by HMRC and that they,
	"will be mentored by the personal training officer network".—[Official Report, 25/2/09; col. 249.]
	I am surprised at that. I am not sure whether that should be the "personnel" training officer network. I assume that it should be "personnel", the old-fashioned word for HR. Alternatively, does it mean personal trainers of the type used by celebrities? The interpretation can be slightly ambiguous, which may be due to the spelling on the record. Perhaps the Minister will explain that more fully.
	For the reasons explained by the Minister when he spoke to the first amendments to the Bill, this is supposed to strengthen the border force and improve it. This afternoon, we have heard some of the fears. In fact, the adequacy of training is exactly what will make this entire exercise a success or not, of which I am sure that the Minister is fully seized. That is why it is worth going back to this issue at this stage. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I very much support this amendment. We had considerable discussion about this in Committee, but I do not think that we entirely clarified what would happen. As I understand it, these new arrangements are already, in some shadow form, being applied by the UK Border Agency. How many staff have already been transferred from HMRC to the UK Border Agency and are shadowing either immigration officers or being taught their roles? Information on training in shadow form should be readily available to tell us what is being done, what is being put forward and how staff are being informed. Presumably, they are half doing the job.
	If no staff have been transferred or identified, we need to understand how many will be transferred at any one time and how many will be subject to training immediately. Potentially, there would be a hold-up in starting this process if a training course has to be undertaken. Fourteen weeks is either a very long time or it is not a long time at all. It depends on what has to fit into it and how much "personal" or "personnel" training will have to be given. I do not think that we are clear on how much training is involved. If a person comes from HMRC to be trained as an immigration officer, he or she will have to be trained in all that immigration officers do and an immigration officer will need to be trained in all the revenue aspects of the job.
	As the Minister said, the training will be complex because people will have to understand the legislation and, in particular, certain bits of legislation—even the slave trade, perhaps. All that information has to be imparted. I am more worried about the people being transferred than I am about those who will come into the new agency. The people being transferred really need a proper training package.
	How many people are already within the UK Border Agency on either a shadow or a temporary basis and what sort of training have they had? How many are due to transfer to the agency from HMRC and when, if they have not already done so? If some have been transferred, how many more are to be transferred? How much training has already taken place and will those trained be ready to start whenever these provisions come into effect? I suspect that we are more than three-quarters of the way down the line, as we so often are with legislation. Everything has happened except the final imprimatur, which comes from our having spent an enormous number of days talking about an enormous number of clauses to enable the implementation of what is already half-implemented.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the noble Baronesses have rightly homed in on the important area of training. Clause 12 sets out the supplementary provisions relating to the Director of Border Revenue's powers to designate customs revenue officials. Before making any such designation, the director must be satisfied that—among other things—the official has completed adequate training. For training to be deemed adequate, it must provide a designated customs official with all the instruction and skills appropriate and necessary to exercise the customs revenue functions conferred upon them fully and properly. Amendment 19 does not, in practice, impose any different requirements from those already imposed by the Bill.
	Broadly, training for designated customs officials will mirror that which is given to officers of HM Revenue and Customs who currently exercise customs functions at the border. This current training in HMRC is externally accredited by Edexcel. The training given to those officials will enable them lawfully to discharge all the functions vested in them. The customs training a UK Border Agency frontline official receives will be needs-based and will depend on the official's role and the customs functions that he or she is to exercise; and whether the official is an officer of HM Revenue and Customs who has transferred to the border force, an immigration officer in the border force, or a new recruit to the border force.
	First, I will say a little more about the training of officers of HMRC who have transferred. Some 4,500 officers of HM Revenue and Customs will transfer to the UK Border Agency to continue carrying out customs functions. On transfer, they will lose their status as HM Revenue and Customs officers but will be designated as customs officials. They are already adequately trained and have expertise in exercising customs functions. Current training for officers of HM Revenue and Customs involves guided learning for two weeks, a residential course of six weeks and training at a port or airport for four to six weeks, depending on the location and the skills required.
	Existing immigration officers of the UK Border Agency will be trained to exercise customs functions where required for the role that they are undertaking. The training that they receive will depend on the customs functions that they are to carry out. The skills and knowledge covered by existing HMRC training will continue to form the basis of the training for those in the agency who are required to exercise customs functions. Once adequately trained, immigration officers will be designated as customs officials, subject to them meeting the other designation criteria. Some immigration officers are already trained to carry out questioning for customs purposes at the primary checkpoint and search freight for customs purposes.
	Finally, let me say a little about new recruits to the UK Border Agency. A new UK Border Agency training programme for operational staff working at the border is currently under development. For new recruits, the training programme will support the development of the unified border force culture and cover both immigration and customs work, enabling staff to operate across all border controls. The set of skills and knowledge covered by existing HMRC training will continue to form the basis of the training for those in the agency, including new recruits who are required to exercise customs functions. New recruits will undertake an accredited foundation course, including training to enable them to carry out customs functions where this is part of their role. Once adequately trained, new recruits who are to carry out customs functions will be designated as customs officials.
	Customs training covers a wide range of areas, including relevant legislation; customs regimes, such as the common agricultural policy; targeting for customs purposes; disclosure-handling of material gathered during criminal investigation; questioning and note-taking; how to arrest and caution; custody, charging and bail procedures; rules of evidence, interviewing, witness statements and giving evidence; customs allowances; dealing with EU and non-EU goods; calculation of duty and VAT; how to take payments, seize or detain goods and vehicles, and issue paperwork; prohibitions and restrictions; recognition of, and how to deal with, controlled drugs and offensive weapons; searching persons, baggage and vehicles; personal safety training; and, for officers working in Scotland, specific training in the working of the Scottish legal system and the different regimes in place there.
	The border force also trains its officers to help them deal with difficult situations. The training delivered to officers includes modules on stress awareness, personal safety training, and cultural and customer awareness to assist them in communicating with all passengers in a professional and sensitive manner, and in resolving difficult situations. Following on from their training, policy guidance and education is available for staff dealing with specific stressful posts, and an employee assistance programme is available to support all UK Border Agency members of staff 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. In addition, the border force has arrangements in place to ensure that staff can communicate effectively with non-English speaking passengers arriving in the UK and with those who the agency encounters during the course of its business within the UK.
	A number of front-line officers are qualified in a variety of languages and can provide assistance immediately. The UK Border Agency also has access to over 2,000 interpreters via a database who can assist by telephone or attend in person. This service provides access to speakers of over 50 languages.
	Some 4,500 HMRC officers will transfer formally to the UK Border Agency on the Bill receiving Royal Assent. They are already trained and skilled on the customs side, and immigration officers' training to take over these functions has already begun. The figures I have at the moment show that 2,600 officers have already completed the training.
	On the basis of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that the amendment is unnecessary and that she will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. It will be helpful to have on the record what standards are expected and the details fleshed out far more than we heard in Committee. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 19 withdrawn.
	Amendment 19A
	 Moved by Baroness Hanham
	19A: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
	"Use of personal data of UK citizens
	Nothing in this Act shall enable any of the officers designated under this Part to use any personal data of UK citizens to restrict their right to enter or leave the United Kingdom for legitimate purposes."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, recent publicity has drawn attention to the information that will be required by the UK Border Agency of those who want to travel from this country. This is a good opportunity to ask the Government to explain exactly how much advance information will have to be provided and how far in advance it must be done.
	We have discussed on many occasions the progress of the e-borders system that will enable passengers' details to be held and processed while they pass through an airport, and how identification will be improved by the use of biometrics such as fingerprints and eye scans. However, I do not believe that anyone anticipated that information such as telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, credit card details, addresses of destination and travel information would all be required. We are aware of the advance passenger information that will be collected, but is it really desirable or practical, or within this country's values about which we hear much spoken, that every journey is to be scrutinised and identified by the provision of information to the authorities, having been collected by the people about whom we are talking?
	Will the Minister tell us today exactly what advance information is going to be required for any journey both now and in the future, for how it is anticipated the information will be held, and how it will affect those who make a last-minute decision to travel somewhere or have business requirements that suddenly arise? The security of our borders and the work of the UK Border Agency are totally germane to this. Private citizens in this country are not accustomed to having their movements subjected to interrogation by the authorities. For generations, citizens have been free to come and go, as our passports say, without let or hindrance. Situations change and we appreciate that things may have to be tightened up, but the limitations that the Government, in their enthusiasm to record the details of travellers' movements and make sure that our borders are secure, are proposing to put on our right to roam around the world need to be clear. It may be that the newspaper reports have exaggerated the situation, but if that is so, the Minister has an excellent opportunity to clear it up today. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment to discuss further this important issue, which was brought up today at Question Time by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I shall look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister. International and EU requirements place plenty of onus at the moment on us to supply passenger list information, and there are adequate international agreements on what information is required, so that each country can check any threat—obviously, a terrorist one in particular but also from serious criminals, and so on, who may be travelling from here to there.
	However, the reports that any more advanced travel plans will have to be lodged are worrying. I will briefly give three categories of people for whom that, at least, will be extremely difficult. There are the young and the retired, who can travel week after week; those in their gap years can change their plans at the last minute, while retired people have that same freedom—they are not tied by having to return to work in two weeks and may, on the spur of the moment, go where the weather is better. Why should they need to furnish anything in advance? If they are in the south of Spain and fancy taking the ferry to Morocco, why should they not be able to do that at will?
	There is also last-minute travel, particularly on business. One might have all sorts of reasons for having to travel at the last minute or change one's plans; partly business or, sometimes, family disasters such as death, et cetera. This even comes down to someone as specific as a yachtsman, whose travel plans depend entirely on the direction of the wind. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that, when we leave this country, the Government do not have plans to start requiring us to furnish anything other than our first destination. That is the extent of what the Government should require, and then to get to know when we are coming back. They get substantial information at the moment, as I said, from passenger lists, which carriers are required to furnish; beyond that is really a step too far.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken in any earlier part of this Bill, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord West, understands my concerns relating to this exact issue and has helpfully allowed me to talk to his officials about it. However, I want to get something from the Dispatch Box and on the record on this important issue of "without let or hindrance". Would the Minister confirm that no part of the powers of the Border and Immigration Agency have been devolved, or are intended to be devolved, to any commercial organisation or any other non-governmental body? A particular example would be any employee of BAA.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, this amendment is very important, bearing as it does on our freedom of movement and travel. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has already mentioned several categories of people who may have to make journeys at very short notice. To that group, I would add parliamentary visits to the EU in Brussels, or to look at foreign elections at short notice. I hope that the Government are taking into full account all these special needs, which may occur unexpectedly.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is my first intervention and probably my last on this Bill but, when I saw this amendment and recalled the reports that I had seen, I thought that perhaps this was an opportunity to say something.
	If the reports that I have seen are to be believed, this is a frightening situation. According to these reports—and I hope that the Minister will be able to deny them—all British citizens and everybody else, if they leave this country, whether by sea, rail or air, will have to give advance notice of where they are going and give an itinerary as well. The report that I saw went even further than that; it seemed to suggest that, eventually, the provision would apply to internal journeys, too, so that if you went from London to Swansea by train you would have to give a note of where you were going and what you were going to do there.
	That is such a restriction of the freedom of people in this country that I simply cannot believe that there are people in the Government or the Civil Service, or even the police or security services, who would even dream up such a proposal. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us and say that we shall be able, as previously, to go about our business without interference from government snoopers.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, this amendment, spoken to so ably by my noble friend and the noble Baroness from the Liberal Front Bench, underwrites a major problem that government and bureaucracies have, which is collecting information that you do not need and, quite often, not collecting information that you do need. Some of your Lordships may have seen that brilliant German film about the Stasi—I think that it was called "People Like Us", or something like that—which illustrated the way in which a massive effort is made by a natural bureaucracy to collect a lot of wholly irrelevant information.
	I am a member of Sub-Committee F of the EU Select Committee. At present, we are looking at money-laundering and we have had various government agencies along to tell us about the information that they are collecting. Obviously, I shall not comment on anything that we have learnt; all I would say is that there is a real danger of overkill, which is simply not taken account of or gripped by the only two groups of people who really can get to grips with it—Ministers and Parliament.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, information is obviously an essential tool in support of law enforcement and national security and is key to our ability to secure the border effectively. That is why Part 1 establishes a comprehensive framework covering the use and disclosure of customs information, including personal customs information. I understand that the amendment is meant to probe e-Borders, rather than the Bill itself. We are exploiting modern technology such as e-Borders to make our border even more secure and to target terrorist suspects, known criminals and would-be illegal immigrants before they can do harm, so as to protect the public. To do that, we need to monitor all cross-border travel. That does not mean that we are interested in where law-abiding members of the public go on their holidays, but it is a sad fact that terrorists and criminals make use of the latest technology and we would therefore be negligent if we did not harness the same technology to protect our border. An increased use of technology enables us to target our resources where risks have been identified and facilitate travel where they have not.
	We must make clear that e-Borders information is information that people give to carriers. We will not ask people for it—the carriers have a liability to provide it. The carriers can only provide the data that they have received from passengers: there is no question of passengers having to complete a form or questionnaire when they travel. The data are provided electronically by the carrier—that is what some of the debate on e-Borders is about. It is not absolutely clear how that will be done, but it will probably be via some form of data transfer. This is travel document information, known as the "passenger name record". When details crop up of high-risk movements and people whom we have background data on, we will be able to find out more about those people.
	E-Borders was successfully trialled through a prototype, Project Semaphore. It did not stop people making short-notice journeys, or several journeys in a row. It was the subject of extensive consultation with the travel industry. The then Prime Minister announced plans for an e-Borders system in September 2004. Up until February 2009, there were 82 million passenger movements, which generated 35,000 alerts. More than 3,000 arrests were made for crimes including murder, rape and assault. The arrests also included a number of counterterrorist interventions. Significant numbers of passengers were properly refused leave to enter the UK on the basis of this information.
	The e-Borders programme has been subject to appropriate scrutiny both by Parliament and the Information Commissioner's Office, with which we engage regularly. The code of practice on data-sharing was drawn up in consultation with the Information Commissioner's Office and is available in the Commons Library. We are due to publish a review of that code shortly.
	Clause 14 sets out the purposes for which customs information may be used and disclosed, and by whom. Clause 15 imposes statutory duties of confidentiality in respect of personal customs information. Clause 16 sets out the limited and strictly prescribed exceptions to those duties. The framework ensures that the operational needs of the border force to protect the public from harm are balanced against the right protections for personal customs information. I do not consider that a further restriction, such as that proposed in this amendment, is necessary or appropriate.
	I know that the noble Baroness does not intend to impose in this Bill a sweeping ban on the use of information, but instead seeks to identify what information is in the e-Borders programme. Of course there is no restriction on the right of UK citizens to enter or leave the United Kingdom for legitimate purposes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, raised an issue that I know is being dealt with. He has talked at length with the deputy chief executive of the border force. I apologise for the confusion and problems that he has confronted and assure him that there is no intention that anyone other than properly designated border force officials will be responsible for entry to, or departure from, this country. I will write to him with a fuller reply on that point.
	It is important to knock into touch the claim that we will all have to fill out long forms detailing where we are going and where we will be going next. The information is just the data that the airline holds when one applies for a ticket. That airline information has already given us an amazing ability to home in on people who are a danger to this country. People who are travelling normally will not notice anything different.
	Sometimes scare stories are put out that are not real. Information is fundamental to the delivery of many modern services. There have been some bad hiccups over data protection and IT systems, not just for the Government, but also in the private sector. However, to try to turn back the clock 30 years and pretend that we do not have to use information to protect and administer ourselves is mad. E-Borders will fulfil a very important role. It will not impinge on the privacy of individuals, or their ability to live their lives with no interference from the state. However, it will enable us to get those who intend to do us harm, criminals and those who have no right to come into this great country of ours. On that basis, I call on the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the Minister clarify one thing? He says that there is no intention to stop people travelling for legitimate purposes. Would he define a "legitimate purpose" as absolutely everything that does not constitute a criminal purpose?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, that is quite a difficult question which I need to think about a little more carefully. Can I have a think about exactly what a "legitimate purpose" is, and get my lawyers to look at exactly what it is, before I make a statement here? I refuse to call myself a simple sailor again, but I can see myself stepping into a great Pooh trap over some definition.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there is no intention to extend these measures to internal travel, and that they are for cross-border travel?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, absolutely. This would not apply to travel between, say, England, Scotland and Wales. As I am sure that the noble Lord is aware, however, we are coming up on the issue of the common travel area. The Republic of Ireland and ourselves are keen that we should have this e-Borders capability, and the Irish will have a similar thing for our people going there for exactly the same reasons: being able to ensure that there is no trafficking or criminal activity, and that there are no people trying to get around our immigration laws or terrorist events. Apart from that, within Great Britain, this would not apply.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has probably missed a golden opportunity to say exactly what information will be required. He did not do that but, as I understand it, he is basically saying that it is passport details, date of travel and, probably, original destination.
	There were some quite scary stories, however, and it seems that no one has made any effort to answer them; indeed, they have not been well answered today. We have raised the subject, and I am sure that people will come back to it in due course. However, I do not intend to take to take it any further this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 19A withdrawn.
	Amendment 20
	 Moved by Baroness Hanham
	20: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
	"UK Border Agency detention
	In the application of PACE orders by virtue of section 22—
	(a) no person may be detained in an office of the UK Border Agency for a period exceeding 3 hours, and
	(b) no person may be detained in a police cell under powers granted to the UK Border Agency for more than 5 days."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall be quite quick with this, and I hope that the Minister will accept it; it is straightforward. It would put into the Bill the limits on the length of time that someone may be held in different types of facility by the UK Border Agency. By definition, we are almost definitely talking about either illegal immigrants or somebody who has been apprehended at the border for other reasons. It is necessary that we put this in the Bill because the Government have created this confusing bundle of powers, sharing around customs and revenue functions to different officials, and then adding to that those who will be covered by the PACE provisions. That means that police-type functions are being envisaged for people who are not police. We would like to be clear about who is allowed to do what under these provisions.
	The Government introduced the new clauses on PACE powers so that we would have them in the Bill. That is well and good, but in Clause 22(4) we have a reference to people who are held in UK Border Agency detention if they are in,
	"an office of the UK Border Agency".
	I would like to explore how, if at all, an office of the UK Border Agency might be categorised. Plainly it is different from a police cell. The Minister made some efforts, in correspondence and in Committee, to describe what was meant by "short-term" accommodation. In correspondence and in Committee, the Minister endeavoured to describe what is meant by short-term accommodation. In Committee, he explained that places that are now designated as short-term holding facilities will, or may, in future be used to detain persons under customs and revenue investigation powers. Do offices of the UK Border Agency fall into that category?
	My amendment makes it absolutely clear that there is a firm difference between premises partly occupied by the UK Border Agency—that is one of the definitions given in Clause 22(4)—and police cells. I do not want to see any confusion about where people can be held and for how long. If they are held in an office of the UK Border Agency by a member of staff of the UK Border Agency who has rights under PACE to hold people, they can be held there only for three hours to sort the matter out. If they want to hold a person for longer, they will have to find a policeman and put them in a police cell before the three hours are up. Under the UK Borders Act, once they are in a police cell, they can be held for no more than seven days, as the Minister said in his letter. We need to make it absolutely clear that they can actually only be held for five days. The seven days applies only to someone who is to be deported. However, this is an awfully long time to be held in a police cell and we want to be very clear what this is all about.
	I hope the Minister will accept that these limits not only must be observed but are germane to the Bill and should be clearly stated. If there are rights under the Bill and there are responsibilities under PACE as regards arresting and holding people, it is proper for the relevant measure in the UK Borders Act to be included in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, this amendment seeks to limit the time that a person can be held in a UK Border Agency office—the place to which he is initially taken under Clause 22(4)(a)—which is normally occupied by designated customs officials. It also deals with detention in police cells.
	The Minister's letter of 10 March went into some detail describing the categories of powers exercised by UKBA officials, and now by some 4,500 HMRC officials under the Bill. There is administrative detention under the 1971 Act of a person pending their examination, removal or deportation; detention under the UK Borders Act of a person who may be liable to arrest or who is the subject of an arrest warrant, and detention following arrest by an immigration officer for an offence under the 1971 Act. In addition, customs officials have powers of arrest and detention under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which can now be exercised presumably by immigration officers as well.
	As we understand it, the short-term holding facilities mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, could be used for all three categories, and by the police to detain people pending charges for ordinary criminal offences or terrorist offences committed at a port. This means that the population of the facility could be extremely variable in terms of the seriousness of any offence they may have committed, and the appropriate degree of security that should apply to them.
	The new definition of a short-term holding facility also allows a person to be detained indefinitely in one of those facilities, as the amended definition read out by the Minister in Committee at col. 287 of Hansard confirmed. I think that the maximum length of time that a person can be held in a UKBA office—I am subject to correction if I am wrong—is dealt with in Section 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007. It prescribes that a person may be detained only for three hours. Although there is no reading across to Clause 22 in the Bill, I take it that the powers which are exercised to hold somebody in one of these offices would be the powers in the UK Borders Act. If not, should there not be some reference back to the UK Borders Act so that we know that the three hours applies to both?
	As regards detention in a police cell, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has put her finger on a problem that exists and which has been extremely troublesome from time to time. Where the police detain someone and hold them in a cell under immigration Act powers, they are normally transferred fairly rapidly to UKBA officials, but delays do occur, and the limit of seven days is exceeded in certain cases. We need to watch this very carefully and take steps under this Bill to see that the rules are properly observed, which they are not always at the moment.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, this amendment would impact the UK Border Agency's operational effectiveness, and I must resist it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked whether police-type functions are envisaged by border force officers. The answer is yes. They will have powers of arrest, detention and other enforcement powers, as immigration HMRC officers currently do. That is why it is essential to apply PACE to these officers.
	It might be helpful if I explain that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Revenue and Customs) Order 2007 currently allows a person to be detained following arrest for a maximum of six hours in a non-designated office of HM Revenue and Customs. This is a reasonable period, and it currently enables HM Revenue and Customs to deal effectively with a significant number of arrested persons at its offices at ports and airports. Cases which may be resolved within a six-hour period are dealt with without the need to transfer arrested persons to custody suites or to police stations.
	The arrested person is protected by the application of the PACE codes of practice regardless of whether he or she is at an office of HM Revenue and Customs or detained in a designated custody suite or police station. As I have said previously in debating the application of PACE, PACE (Northern Ireland) and the PACE codes to the UK Border Agency, we need to ensure that, in so far as they will in future be investigating and detaining people for the same offences and exercising the same functions at the border as officers of HMRC do currently, designated customs officials of the agency have the same powers and are required to provide the same safeguards.
	That includes ensuring that the same power as is currently in place to allow a person arrested for a customs offence to be detained at an office of HM Revenue and Customs for six hours is available in respect of future detention of persons by designated customs officials in offices of the UK Border Agency. Accordingly, Clause 22 will impose a similar limit on the detention of a person in a non-designated UK Border Agency office of six hours following his or her arrest by a designated customs official.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we might be able to get an answer on this point. I have been absolutely clear all along that the holding power of arrest under PACE was three hours, and the Minister keeps talking about six hours. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has very kindly just handed me the UK Borders Act, which states absolutely clearly:
	"An individual may not be detained under this section"—
	which is on the designation of an immigration officer—
	"for longer than three hours".
	I had never understood it to be other than three hours. We discussed it as three hours in Committee ad nauseam, and no one corrected us. I believe that it is three hours unless the officer is a policeman, in which case the police are governed by different legislation.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, when the Minister replies, could he also say what is meant by "short-term holding facility" in Clause 25? We touched on this in Committee, but I am not sure that we got an answer.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, as I understand it, unless the Box tells me I am wrong, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Revenue and Customs) Order 2007 currently allows a person to be detained, following arrest, for a maximum of six hours in a non-designated office of HMRC. That is what I understand, unless I am told otherwise. The three-hour limit is the power referred to specifically in subsection (3) of the UK Borders Act on power to detain at a port. The other power is a standard over-arching power to hold someone for six hours. Section 30 of PACE allows a person to be detained at any HMRC or police office for a period of six hours. The provision in the UK Borders Act is for a different purpose.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would confirm that an immigration officer or a customs officer is entitled to hold someone for three hours, which was my clear understanding. Perhaps no one here can help us. Section 2(1)(a) of the UK Borders Act, referring to detention, says,
	"may be liable to arrest by a constable under section 24(1)".
	That is all the Police and Criminal Evidence Act goes on. Then it says that a designated immigration officer who detains an individual, which is what we are talking about, can hold for three hours.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, there is confusion here. The three-hour limit is the power in Section 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007 for a designated immigration officer, but the six-hour limit comes in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, as I have stated. Clearly, there is confusion here which needs to be resolved and I shall ensure that that is done. Those involved have argued with me that they need six hours because in that time they could clear up a problem and send someone on their way without a problem. The shorter period of time would cause them problems as they might not be able to resolve the issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the UK Border Agency office. It is modelled on an existing PACE provision: HMRC offices equipped and managed identically to police stations, including cells and so on, with an interview room and the ability for overnight accommodation for those arrested for customs offences.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, Clause 22(6) states:
	"A person may be transferred—
	(a) between UK Border Agency detention and Revenue and Customs detention".
	Whether the period is six or three hours, will that be the total number of hours or will each of those detentions incur a new period of detention? Have I made myself clear?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, it will be six hours in total. Of course, HMRC and the old BIA are now one body. It will be six hours in total for them to investigate whether it is an immigration or a border and customs issue.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we have a problem here. Under Section 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007, an immigration officer can detain someone for only three hours, whereas the customs, under the legislation quoted by the Minister, have always been able to detain someone for a period of six hours. In Clause 22(4), we are talking about an office of the UK Border Agency. The noble Lord has just said that because the customs function is to be integrated within the UK Border Agency, it has suddenly acquired the power to detain someone for six hours, when up until the point when the Bill comes into effect, no immigration officer will have been able to detain someone in one of the offices for longer than three hours. We have just learnt that this afternoon, somewhat to my distress. I was involved in the detail of the UK Borders Act proceedings in Committee and on Report and I thought three hours was a perfectly legitimate maximum. To learn that we have suddenly doubled that to six hours is a matter of enormous concern. I hope the Minister will be able to clear up that discrepancy.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I hope I can clarify this a little. The three hours relate to waiting for the police to come along and investigate; the six hours are for a border force official to do the investigation. I think we need more clarification on this. I am not happy with the advice I am getting. I agree that there is confusion here, which is not satisfactory. This needs to be resolved, and I shall do that.
	Do noble Lords wish me to go on to the issue of five days and seven days? I do not know how it is best to take the other issue forward. I will take it away, clarify the position and write to noble Lords who have attended this debate. I hope that there is sense and logic behind it. If there is, we will leave it as it is; if there is not, I undertake to come back and do something about it in the Bill.
	As regards the five and seven days, the noble Baroness is right. The extra 48 hours are for us to be able to move someone from a port. Say he has come in to Heathrow and we know that there is a flight we can get for him, but it is 24 hours away, it would be madness to transfer him to some other facility after five days and then have to move him back again. The period is five days absolutely, but the seven days are because there is a 48-hour period when we know a person will go on a flight. That is how we have arrived at that seven-day period.
	I am sorry that that was a rather unsatisfactory answer on the first matter. I will take it forward in the way that I said. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, is what the Minister said about five and seven days the meaning of "short-term" holding? In that case, how long is short-term?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, as I understand it, "short-term" relates to the facility in which we keep people for the six or three-hour period, not the five-day period.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, can the Minister bear in mind that what we have been talking about in relation to three hours and six hours arises only in a clause that deals with the application of PACE orders? However, the Act will apply to Scotland also. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at the issue of three hours and six hours and see how it impacts in relation to Clause 24, which concerns investigations and detention in Scotland. Exactly the same points might be relevant but have to be dealt with separately with regard to the legislation that presently applies in Scotland, which is different from PACE.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I will certainly do that.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to have had this debate because it was important to have done so. I will be extremely grateful for the Minister's clarification on this because it looks to me as if we may need three items in the Bill to clarify this. I hope that we will be allowed to come back to this at Third Reading in the light of what the Minister says. I think the Third Reading rules will allow us to do so, so we might be able to clarify both the points that have been raised. I thank the Minister for his honesty in admitting to not quite knowing the answer and look forward to receiving his letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 20 withdrawn.
	Amendment 21 not moved.
	Clause 30: Complaints and misconduct
	Amendment 22
	 Moved by Lord Avebury
	22: Clause 30, page 23, line 26, at end insert—
	"(2B) Regulations made under subsection (1) or (2A) may make provision conferring functions on the Independent Police Complaints Commission in respect of the exercise of immigration functions, customs functions and the provision of services pursuant to arrangements relating to the discharge of those functions whether in the UK or overseas."

Lord Avebury: My Lords, this amendment ensures IPCC oversight of the exercise of immigration and customs functions and of the provision of services under arrangements for the discharge of those functions, whether in the UK or abroad. It provides that complaints can be made to the IPCC about the conduct of customs and immigration officials, whether they be in the UK or at the juxtaposed controls that we discussed at length in Committee. At that point, we moved a similar amendment to this one, Amendment 37. I refer to col. 293 of the Official Report of 25 February. We have now changed that amendment to recognise the roles that were added to the functions of the IPCC in what is now Clause 30, which I very much welcome, extending the remit of the IPCC to include the private contractors of the UK Borders Agency.
	The Minister said then that there was no need to provide power for independent investigation of misconduct by officials at overseas posts because they did not exercise enforcement powers. On juxtaposed controls, the Minister said:
	"The Government are considering whether an independent oversight system can be put in place for matters arising at the juxtaposed controls". —[Official Report, 25/02/09; col. 295.]
	On the escorting of those who are being removed or deported from the UK, he added that,
	"the IPCC jurisdiction does not cover detention in the escorting of prisoners on probation outward from the UK. An individual being escorted for deportation ... is really for the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. There probably is something here that needs a little more looking into. My Box tells me that this is a Prisons and Probation Ombudsman issue but I will look into it a little more because it looks like something could fall between the cracks and I want to look at it".—[Official Report, 25/02/09; col. 297.]
	The importance of provision for independent investigation of complaints of misconduct by immigration officers and the private contractors at juxtaposed controls and in the course of escorted removals, especially the latter, was highlighted by the Outsourcing Abuse dossier, which is now being investigated by Dame Nuala O'Loan. It would be very useful if the Minister could tell us when it is expected to report, because I dare say that we will not make any progress until we know what the recommendations are.
	If the Government will not accept the amendment, we need an explanation of how they are going to ensure that misconduct overseas by officials or contractors, particularly at the juxtaposed controls or during escorted removals, can be adequately investigated. We should also like to hear from the Minister about the division of responsibility for investigation of misconduct within the UK between the IPCC and the ombudsman.
	In Committee, my noble friend Lady Miller raised the distinct situations in Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the IPCC remit does not run. On Scotland, the Minister promised to write to my noble friend, but she still awaits an answer to her question. We understand that there has been some correspondence between the Home Office and the Scottish Government on extending the remit of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to match the extended remit to be granted to the IPCC in Clause 30. We should be grateful for a progress report on that matter.
	Regarding Northern Ireland, the Minister said that the police ombudsman there will be given statutory powers to look into serious complaints incidents and conduct matters in relation to the exercise of specified enforcement functions by all border staff and contractors. If it is only specified enforcement functions, does that mean a more limited range of matters than in England or Scotland? Will the enforcement of the police ombudsman's recommendations be the same as if the complaint had been made in one of the other jurisdictions, and to whom will the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland report? In the report on public awareness of the system for complaints to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, it was found that only 11 per cent of respondents said that they could go to the police ombudsman if they had a complaint. I wonder whether the Minister expects that there would be as low a rate with complaints against the UKBA or customs, where intrinsically the complainants are less likely to have knowledge of the ombudsman's powers.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, Clause 30 extends the existing regulatory making power given to the Secretary of State in Section 41 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 so that she can give the Independent Police Complaints Commission an oversight role in England and Wales. This will apply in respect of the exercise of customs functions by officials of the Secretary of State and the Director of Border Revenue, and the provision of services—other than those involving escorting and detention, which fall under Part 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—relating to the discharge of those customs functions and the immigration and asylum-related enforcement functions referred to in Section 41(1) of the 2006 Act.
	As I think the House is aware, oversight of the provision of services involving escorting and detention is already undertaken by the Prison and Probations Ombudsman. The noble Lord's amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations giving the IPCC an oversight role in respect of the functions to which I have referred not only in England and Wales, but in Northern Ireland, Scotland and overseas.
	As has been mentioned, in Committee a similar amendment was proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Roberts of Llandudno. However, there has been no change to our view that any such power to extend the IPCC's jurisdiction is unnecessary and would be inappropriate. I do not believe that the IPCC would want that.
	The Government are committed to securing appropriate, proportionate oversight of all complaints, incidents and conduct matters relating to the UK Border Agency or its contractors, but it has always been and remains our intention that the IPCC should have a role only in relation to the UKBA in England and Wales, just as it does in respect of the police and the other organisations that it oversees.
	I should like to explain why we think it is inappropriate to give the Secretary of State power to extend the IPCC's jurisdiction, as envisaged in the amendment. First, it is not clear that the Government would be able to secure the necessary overseas powers that the IPCC would need in order to investigate matters in the way envisaged in the amendment. Secondly, if it is intended to propose that the IPCC look at matters overseas involving detention and escorting, this would be a significant creep in the scope of the matters to be overseen by it. Further, Section 41(3) of the Police and Justice Act specifically carves out detention and escorting matters from the IPCC's remit in view of the existing oversight role given in respect of those matters to the Prison and Probation Ombudsman. We would not want to change that position.
	The policy intention behind Section 41 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 was to ensure that the IPCC provided independent oversight of UKBA officials exercising enforcement powers consistent with its oversight of the police and other law enforcement agencies. The amendment would give the IPCC much greater powers in respect of the border force and its contractors than it has in relation to the police and other agencies that it oversees. We feel that that would be inappropriate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made clear that he has concerns about the oversight arrangements for the escorting of immigration detainees overseas. I shall try to explain arrangements in this area. Where a detainee has displayed disruptive behaviour or where we believe he will not comply with removal directions, escorts are provided on the aircraft who are responsible for the detainee on the flight, and remain with detainees until they are handed over in destination countries. Where the detainee is known to have a medical condition, a medical escort is provided if required.
	Escorting officers are regularly monitored at the airport up until the point of departure, which tends to be the point at which a detainee becomes disruptive. It is often an extremely difficult and very unpleasant task for them to do. They are permitted to use reasonable force against non-compliant or disruptive detainees, but only where it is considered necessary and as a last resort. They are trained in approved methods of control and restraint including, where appropriate, the application of mechanical restraints such as handcuffs. Restraints will be used only as long as they are assessed to be necessary. After each job, escorts are required to provide end-of-task reports. These include use-of-force reports if force was employed. All uses of force must be recorded and reported to the contract monitor, who reviews every incident to ensure that the use of force is proportionate and reasonable.
	The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman is the correct body to oversee complaints, incidents and conduct matters relating to detention and escorting functions undertaken by UKBA's officers, officials and contractors. In essence the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman investigates deaths in detention and also considers complaints where detainees are not content with the response they receive from the border force or the contractor. This oversight is not restricted by geographical boundaries and therefore the type of escorting work I have just described can be referred to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman if the complainant is not satisfied with the border force's handling of their complaint. This oversight ensures that there is suitable scrutiny of matters arising while immigration subjects are detained, escorted and removed from the UK.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the Home Secretary's appointment of Dame Nuala O'Loan to review independently the border force's handling of the allegations that appeared in the Independent newspaper's Outsourcing Abuse dossier. This concerns cases where it was suggested that some of those removed from the United Kingdom had been assaulted by the border force's staff and its contractors. I am afraid that I cannot give an exact date when the report will come out. Under new arrangements, all allegations of serious misconduct against the border force staff and contractors are now investigated by the professional standards unit, a specially trained team of investigators independent of other business areas. These arrangements were implemented in response to the Complaints Audit Committee's recommendations for improving the quality of investigations. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman provides a robust oversight of detention complaints where the complainant is dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by UKBA investigators.
	UKBA officers and officials are exempt from prosecution under French or Belgian law for acts committed in the UK control zone at juxtaposed controls in those countries where the relevant acts take place in the course of the officers' or officials' duties. Under the terms of the treaties in place for juxtaposed controls, those matters are investigated by the authorities of the host state and all evidence gathered is handed over to the relevant police authorities in the UK for consideration under UK law. All criminal matters that do not relate to the exercise of official functions in a UK control zone are a matter for the French and Belgian authorities and will be processed in accordance with their domestic legislation.
	I am sure that your Lordships will also wish to know what oversight there is of contractors at the juxtaposed controls and, in particular, of those who search freight. Section 40 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 provided for and regulated the work of contractors searching freight at border control. The UK border force currently employs Eamus Cork Solutions—ECS—a French security company at juxtaposed controls. Given the limitation on its jurisdiction to England and Wales, the IPCC is not responsible for overseeing those contractors. However, the legislation provides for a Crown servant to be appointed to monitor the exercise of these powers, to inspect the way in which they are exercised and to investigate and report to the Secretary of State any allegations made against a contractor.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, who will do that? Can the Minister tell us?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I asked exactly the same question this morning when I was being briefed. The role of the monitor is currently carried out by a designated senior customs official.
	To strengthen these arrangements in the light of the formation of UKBA, consideration is being given on whether an independent system of oversight can be put in place in respect of matters arising at the juxtaposed controls that involve border force officers, officials and/or contracted staff and which, though they do not warrant criminal investigation, represent allegations of serious misconduct. Currently such matters would be investigated by the border force's professional standards unit. It is not, however, subject to independent oversight.
	Turning to oversight of matters arising at the non-juxtaposed overseas locations, such as those where immigration liaison managers, formerly known as airline liaison officers, operate, I can confirm that no enforcement powers are exercised at these locations.
	With regard to Northern Ireland, the Government plan to introduce in a Bill later this year proposals for the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to play a similar role there to that which the IPCC has currently in England and Wales. Oversight in Scotland is already provided by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which has a role to play in case of death or inference of criminality. I apologise for not having sent the letter and will ensure that I do so to give the best response on that.
	If there are any points that I have missed, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord, but I hope that he is reassured that the existing and planned provisions will ensure that such serious matters are subject to an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny and will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply, although it raises some further anxiety in my mind, particularly over his response to the question on the complaints made at the juxtaposed controls. He said that a senior customs official deals with them, but that person cannot be fully independent now that we are talking about the integration of the customs and immigration services. However independently minded the person may be, he is not technically independent of the service that he is investigating. That arrangement must be looked at again to see whether the person who is investigating the complaints could be separated entirely from those whom he is looking into.
	The Minister is aware that I have a particular anxiety about the situation with juxtaposed controls, where I do not think that we exercise real oversight. He confirmed that when there was a case of alleged criminal misconduct by any of the UK staff or contractors, it would be for the French or Belgian criminal authorities to look into it. We do not get any knowledge of the reports that are made to the French and Belgian authorities, but this Parliament should be aware of what is going on. We have always said that the juxtaposed controls are not liable to the same kind of parliamentary scrutiny as the services of the immigration authorities in this country. The noble Lord confirmed what we have always feared. There is not the same oversight as if the events took place at Yarl's Wood or at detention offices at Heathrow or Gatwick. The juxtaposed controls are less open to scrutiny and, as far as I know, there has never been a report laid before your Lordships' House or another place summarising the complaints that have been made to the French or Belgian authorities about the treatment of people detained in those centres.
	With regard to what the Minister said about Scotland and Northern Ireland, we will await the reply that he has promised to give to my noble friend. We will digest that and the other helpful remarks that he has made about these services. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 22 withdrawn.
	Amendment 23 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 23A
	 Moved by Baroness Hanham
	23A: Before Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
	"Exceptions to application of this Part
	Nothing in this Part shall affect an application—
	(a) which has been submitted at any time in the twelve months prior to the commencement of this Part by any person for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom, or
	(b) made prior to the commencement of this Part by any person, for the following—
	(i) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom; or
	(ii) British citizenship."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the principle behind this proposed new clause, which would be inserted before Clause 39, is fairness. The Government are seeking to change the routes in this Bill for those applying for various categories of naturalisation and residence in this country. However, we have some issues with some of the planned changes. The people who have faithfully adhered to the current rules and thought that they were firmly established on the road to citizenship should not now have the rug pulled from beneath their feet. They have an expectation of a timescale in which their naturalisation will be fulfilled. Since the last debate in Committee, I have been inundated, as I am sure have other noble Lords, with letters and messages from people in categories that my amendment would help. They have movingly and eloquently expressed their worry, anger and distress that the Government are prepared to muck them about yet again. The Government have already changed the highly skilled migrant programme and applied that retrospectively, even though there is a court case against that, so they must take note of what is happening to those on what used to be called limited leave to remain.
	My amendment has two paragraphs. The second deals with persons in the latter stages of the citizenship process who are at the most advanced stage of getting their UK passports and ought to be protected. The Government have recognised this but the debate in Committee did not end as clearly as we had hoped. If provisional arrangements are to be put in place, I would like to hear them explained fully on the Floor of the House. It is imperative that we get protection for those who are on the road.
	The first paragraph seeks to protect those who are a little further away from the ultimate goal of citizenship—those seeking indefinite leave to remain but who are currently on limited leave to remain. I deliberately set the period to within 12 months of the commencement because the longer the Government dither and hold on to this, the less certainty people have. We hear so much about people who are in this country illegally, the problems that that causes and the difficulty that the Government have in removing them that we should be making sure that all those who wish to stay for a period of time do so by using legal and proper channels.
	We are seeking to prevent retrospectivity. In his letter to us, the noble Lord, Lord Brett, suggested that those who are currently on indefinite leave to remain and those moving into citizenship within the next year or so will not have anything to do under the new citizenship arrangements, but those who are on limited leave to remain will be affected by transitional arrangements. We are seeking to ensure that those who are in the closing stages of limited leave to remain do not get caught up in the transitional arrangements. Many of them have been on the path for three, four or five years and are ready to move on. It seems completely unfair that they should have to go back and start again or even take into account the earned citizenship provisions in this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords have had a chance to see the ninth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is hot off the press; it was published this afternoon. The committee, of which I am a member, went to great trouble to rush it out in order that it would be available for Report. It is in the PPO and I recommend that noble Lords have a copy, as it is rather relevant. I am speaking to support this amendment on behalf of the committee. The best way that I can do that is by referring to the report, which is unanimous, all-party and beyond party.
	Paragraph 1.50, under the heading "Retrospectivity", says:
	"The Bill does not make clear what the effect of the new provisions will be on those whose applications for citizenship are pending on the date at which the Act comes into force, or on others further down the path to citizenship, such as those with limited leave to remain who have not yet qualified for indefinite leave to remain. There are no transitional arrangements ... We expressed our concern about the injustice done by retrospective changes to rules which affect migrants' eligibility to settle in the UK in our report on the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme".
	That was in 2007.
	"Those concerns were subsequently upheld by the High Court and the Government was forced by court order to do what we had sought to persuade them to do in Parliament: honour the legitimate expectations of those who had planned their future lives in the UK on the basis of the law as it stood when they came to this country ... The Minister told the House of Lords that 'we have yet to make a final decision on how our proposals will impact on people who are already in the immigration system.' He promised to provide a note explaining to whom the transitional arrangements will apply".
	We put the following in bold, and it is entirely on all fours with the powerful speech that the noble Baroness has just made.
	"We urge the Government not to repeat the unedifying spectacle of riding roughshod over migrants' legitimate expectations of settlement, which undermined many migrants' faith in the UK's commitment to basic fairness ... We recommend that clear transitional provisions are made which meet the legitimate expectations of those already in the system".
	That, as I understand it, is the basis of this amendment. It is a matter of great importance in terms of public confidence and we hope that Ministers will feel able to support it and not oppose it.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has drawn attention to these important paragraphs in the JCHR report, which I have had the chance to look at while he was speaking.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, would provide transitional protection, but only for those who have outstanding applications for indefinite leave to remain or for British citizenship at the time of commencement of the provisions in Part 2, so it is more limited than the recommendations of the JCHR. In Committee, at col. 540, the Minister gave an assurance that any application for naturalisation that had been lodged before the earned citizenship provisions came into effect would be treated under existing arrangements. He went on to say that an examination was in progress to determine what transitional arrangements should be made for those in the immigration system who had yet to submit an application for ILR or for naturalisation.
	I asked the Minister at the time whether the transitional arrangements for all those in the system, including those who had applied for ILR, would take into account the ruling, referred to indirectly by the JCHR and my noble friend, upholding the right of legitimate expectation and against retrospection in the Immigration Rules in the case of HSMP Forum Ltd, which I quoted in Committee. I had not given the Minister prior notice of that question but, now that he has had the opportunity to consider it, can we have it on the record that the transitional arrangements, including those for people whose applications for ILR were lodged prior to commencement, will have full regard to that judgment?
	I appreciate that there is a problem regarding persons now on limited leave to remain who need to complete five years—or two in the case of closely related family—before they can apply for ILR. The principle should be that they reach the point where they were entitled to apply for naturalisation no later than they would have done in the absence of this Bill. We would be grateful for an assurance to that effect from the Minister.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I will leave the question of the JCHR report for a moment. We are seeking to resist the amendments. Noble Lords will recall that when we discussed a similar amendment in Committee, I confirmed that any application for naturalisation received by the UKBA before the earned citizenship provisions are implemented, and which remains undecided at point, will be considered under existing arrangements set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. To be clear, the earned citizenship clauses will not apply to those cases. We will set this out in the commencement order giving effect to Part 2 of the Bill. This means that primary legislation is not needed in this area so I hope noble Lords will agree that there is no need to discuss this part of the amendment further. However, I see that noble Lords seek assurances about those with limited leave to enter or remain who also have an application pending for indefinite leave to remain; those who submit an application for limited leave to remain within the 12-month period prior to commencement; and those with limited leave to remain who are in a category leading to ILR or who have an application pending for asylum/humanitarian protection or a human rights claim whose claim is subsequently granted.
	I said in Committee that officials were examining what transitional arrangements will apply to those with ILR when earned citizenship becomes law, and I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about that. I hope that he and other noble Lords who are interested in this have seen a copy of the letter and have had a chance to read what I have said about the transitional arrangements that we propose. I will, however, summarise the position. Migrants with a pending application for ILR that is submitted but not decided before the Immigration Rules are changed following commencement of the earned citizenship provisions will have their applications considered under the existing rules. This is also the case for those who have a pending human rights or humanitarian protection claim or who have applied for asylum.
	Any migrant who already has ILR in the UK will be deemed to have permanent residence status for the purposes of the earned citizenship clauses. They will not need to make an application to be recognised as a permanent resident or pay any sort of fee, and they will continue to have full access to benefits and services, subject to the general eligibility criteria. Migrants with ILR, or those whose pending application for ILR is subsequently successful when the earned citizenship clauses in the Bill are commenced, will be able to apply to be naturalised under existing Section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981, provided that they apply within a set period after the clauses have been commenced. We have not yet confirmed this period, but it is likely to be for between 18 and 24 months after the clauses have commenced. Such a period is fair, given that the aim behind our proposals is to encourage more people who are here legally to become British citizens, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said.
	We do not propose that the transitional arrangements should permit those who do not have ILR when the earned citizenship clauses in the Bill are commenced to be able to apply to be naturalised under existing Section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 after the changes have taken effect. This means that when the provisions of the Bill come into force, all migrants with limited leave will have to progress through the earned citizenship architecture to obtain British citizenship or permanent residence.
	The Government will undertake information campaigns between now and the implementation of the earned citizenship proposals to ensure that migrants are aware of the changes and their impact on them. These campaigns will make it clear that the earned citizenship clauses will not be commenced until the beginning of 2010 at the earliest.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the JCHR's ninth report of Session 2008-09, Legislative Scrutiny: Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, which was published very recently. Indeed, the ink is almost still wet, and there has been time to give the report only a cursory glance. The Government will respond to the JCHR's four major recommendations in due course. The noble Lord asked about retrospection. The Government are trying to encourage new and fundamental approaches to citizenship, and we continue to examine what transitional arrangements will apply. I can confirm, as I already have done, who will be allowed access without reference to the new clauses and who will not. We will therefore have to consider matters, but let me be clear; the consistent position is that a migrant's only legitimate expectation is to be assessed under the rules in force at the time of their application. The question then is: when does that time clock start? In the light of the JCHR's report and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the sensible thing for us to do is to respond in writing, setting out more clearly the Government's position. In the mean time, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on a matter of procedure, I realise that we are at a late stage in the Bill, as we are on Report, and that the JCHR's report had to be published at great speed. Having read the report, the Government may be able to respond at Third Reading if amendments can be tabled then. I know the rules about Third Reading and how careful one must be not to expand it, but frankly it is the only opportunity that the House will have to deal with some of the issues in the report before the Bill becomes law. I say that now simply in the hope that if we cannot deal with the report in next week's debates on Report, we may have to come back to some of these issues at Third Reading.

Lord Brett: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important and helpful suggestion, and I think we should seek to make our response to the report available very quickly so that it can be considered. If we could return to it next week, it would be helpful to all concerned.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister again for his reply, although it was not very helpful. I am extremely grateful, too, for sight of the report that has just been issued. We understood as clearly as we could after the last sitting that the Government were going to allow those with indefinite leave to remain to move to the next stage without any transitional arrangements, and we included the two extra areas in our amendment to seek to have that established in the Bill. That is what the Minister had said.
	We are less than happy with the Minister's reply about those with limited leave to remain. We made it quite clear in our amendment that we were looking at those who are in the final stages of limited leave to remain before making their application. The report is extremely important, and it totally underlines what we have been saying: that it is inherently unfair to people who have started on a process to change it suddenly midway. For migrants on higher levels, this will be for the second time, and with a court case against them.
	I am sure that the Minister's written reply to the report will be very good, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity to discuss it further, but those in the latter stages of limited leave to remain should not be left in limbo any longer, not knowing what their process is. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Division on Amendment 23A
	Contents 171; Not-Contents 110.
	Amendment 23A agreed.

Clause 39: Application requirements: general
	Amendment 24
	 Moved by Lord Hylton
	24: Clause 39, page 29, line 19, after "has" insert "refugee status, humanitarian protection status,"

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, for seeing me with his officials since Committee stage, for at least two written replies and for bringing forward several government amendments in this group. I will speak also to the three amendments in my name in this group.
	As regards Amendment 24, I suggest that Clause 39(2)(c) is unclear and that subsection (11) is not sufficiently explicit. Amendment 24 is designed to assist the integration of genuine recognised refugees and those granted long-term humanitarian protection. Refugees should be helped to integrate. They should be mentioned in the Bill; that will provide practical help to those who have to practise and advise in these matters.
	Amendment 31 is designed to ensure that time spent by refugees in Britain, prior to a determination of their claims, counts as part of the qualifying period for citizenship. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does not want to see delayed decisions and the time taken over appeals postponing the grant of citizenship. This is most relevant to the so-called backlog cases where years go by with no decision being reached.
	Amendment 37 is designed to assist the earliest possible integration into British society of refugees and protected persons. It also removes the requirement to take part in community activities. Refugees, by definition, have usually suffered and have lost their home countries. They have a specified and recognised status here and should not be expected to prove themselves like classes of migrants who are applying for citizenship.
	My Amendment 41 covers bona fide refugees who have been accepted as such, who may, through force of circumstances, have had to enter the United Kingdom by illegal means, provided that they have declared themselves to the authorities as soon as possible after entry. My amendment will be helpful to practitioners because it includes the relevant article of the convention in the Bill. I should add that there has been a very small misprint in the text of Amendment 41. After the words "UN Convention on Refugees" the brackets should contain the figures 1951. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in supporting the general approach to all these amendments, perhaps I may draw attention to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has written about this, so that it can be considered by the Minister and the Government. At paragraph 1.53 of our report, under the heading "Compatibility with Refugee Convention", we first refer to introductory matters, including the fact that Article 34 of the refugee convention,
	"requires that States 'expedite naturalisation proceedings'".
	We pointed out that:
	"The UNHCR has expressed its concern that the tighter requirements for naturalisation contained in the Bill make it more difficult in practice for refugees and those with humanitarian protection to qualify for naturalisation and may in fact operate to impair their integration ... The Bill would require all refugees and those with humanitarian protection to pass a qualifying period of five years plus an additional probationary citizenship period of three years prior to qualification for naturalisation. The introduction of the probationary citizenship period would therefore increase the total period of time before refugees become eligible for citizenship to eight years. This could be reduced to six years if the person concerned can demonstrate that they have satisfied the active citizenship requirement, but that is also a requirement which refugees may find it difficult to fulfil because of their particular circumstances of having faced persecution or ill-treatment in the past".
	At paragraph 1.55 the report states:
	"We are concerned that the effect of certain of the earned citizenship requirements in the Bill is to make it more difficult for refugees and those with humanitarian protection to qualify for naturalisation as a British citizen, contrary to Article 34 of the Refugee Convention. We welcome the fact that the Government appears to have acknowledged that these concerns are legitimate and is considering bringing forward its own amendments. We intend to scrutinise any Government amendments with a view to ensuring that adequate exceptions are made for those qualifying for citizenship through the protection route".
	I am now coming to the end. We continue:
	"Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits States from imposing penalties on refugees on account of their illegal entry or presence. The Bill makes it a requirement of naturalisation that an applicant must not, at any time in the qualifying period, have been in the UK in breach of immigration laws, which is widely defined. The UNHCR is concerned that penalisation for illegal entry may operate to prolong the period in which refugees or those with humanitarian protection will be able to apply for naturalisation. We agree with this concern ... We recommend that the Bill be amended to ensure that penalisation for illegal entry does not affect the qualifying period for refugees and those with humanitarian protection".
	I hope that that is all helpful. I am sorry to have to do this in this way, but the report came in so late. I very much hope that the opposition Front Bench, if it comes to power, will recognise the value of this committee, which has become something of a very important addition to both Houses. It is excellent that one can have this debate straight off, with this report being brought to the Minister's attention and time still for it to be properly considered. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and his amendments are part of what I have been trying to put forward.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, in supporting this amendment from these Benches, I should say that our whole reputation is in the balance. Over the years, we have prided ourselves on having a door that welcomes people who are in desperate situations. Often, the refugee is the most desperate of all. Two weeks ago, I spoke to a refugee who had spent four weeks in the back of a lorry travelling from Afghanistan. I know that they should not do that, but let us imagine the despair of people who are ready to put up with that sort of journey. We should remember too those who came in a refrigerated van and were found to have died on their journey when they reached Dover.
	The situation can be desperate, which means that we must be people of realistic compassion who are ready to give such refugees an opportunity to walk the path of citizenship. I would expect the word "humanitarian" from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We still must be a people ready to welcome those who are not in circumstances that we, nor they, would desire. We on these Benches welcome this amendment.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I have looked at cols. 531-33 of the Official Report on 2 March. The Minister gave my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others the reassurance that the Government would,
	"think about a further discretion to cover the time periods taken for the consideration of protection cases".—[Official Report, 2/3/09; col. 532.]
	If that is translated and turned into these government amendments, I am still unclear as to whether they accept the principle that all recognised refugees, and not just the gateway refugees, should not have to go through the hurdles of the qualifying period and active citizenship. I do not think that these amendments go that far. Amendments 28 to 30 and Amendments 33 and 34 merely provide for discretion. In exceptional circumstances, the period during which the claim was pending may count towards the qualifying period. I hope that the Government will reflect hard on these amendments, which I support, and perhaps move others in due course.
	As to penalisation, covered by Amendment 41 to Clause 41, the Minister seemed to imply that any breach of immigration law would only become relevant during the period after an asylum seeker had achieved refugee status. If that is the case, it would be welcome. Many of us are arguing for more than that. We argue that the qualifying period for subsequently recognised refugees should begin at the point of their entry to the UK. Therefore, the Minister would have to give a further assurance that any breach of the law at the time of entry, when a refugee might have been forced to enter illegally—and we have heard countless examples of that—would have taken place before the qualifying period starting at that time. Could the Minister give that reassurance?

Lord Avebury: My Lords, Amendment 32 is of the same mind as the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We do not provide for those in the UK with outstanding applications under European Community law. On the other hand, as well as refugees, we deal with those granted leave to remain outside the rules, where the Secretary of State decides that there are exceptional reasons—that do not fall within the Immigration Rules—to grant leave to remain. We hope that the Government will include the period spent waiting for successful determination of all these claims as half of the qualifying period. That would be the only way to comply with recommendation 157 in the JCHR report, which has already been cited by my noble friend. I hope that we will get an answer on that this evening and that we will not have to wait for a written reply from the JCHR because, on the face of it, this is perfectly clear.
	Our Amendment 52 is also in this group. It adds to Clause 46, dealing with the meaning of references to being in breach of the immigration laws. Proposed new subsections make it clear that, during a period of awaiting successful determination of a claim for asylum, or human rights protection, the applicant is not in breach of the immigration laws. One would have thought that this was obvious, considering that it had been determined that such a person had a legitimate reason for entering the UK. Section 11(2) of the NIA Act 2002 says that,
	"reference to being 'in breach of the immigration laws'",
	in the British Nationality Act applies to a person who,
	"does not have leave to enter or remain",
	here. That applies to the refugee while he awaits the outcome of his claim. It is therefore necessary to have these subsections inserted in the definition. They will also make it possible for the waiting time to count towards a later citizenship application.
	We faintly welcome the Government's amendments, which allow for discretion to waive the requirement for a person to have qualifying immigration status throughout the qualifying period, where a person's temporary leave had expired shortly before his or her application for probationary citizenship, or where the person's probationary citizenship had expired before his or her application for citizenship itself. We also agree that the requirement should be waived for successful asylum seekers, but not only—as the Minister said in Committee—where there is an undue delay in determining a claim, and this delay is not attributable to the claimant.
	There are still some 200,000 so-called legacy cases of people who have been in the system for several years. On the Government's own assertion, those cases are not expected to be cleared until July 2011. The time taken to deal with many current cases is also profoundly unsatisfactory. At the end of 2008, there were 10,800 applications awaiting an initial decision, compared to 6,800 a year earlier, in spite of fewer cases arising in 2008. When decisions are finally reached, these are not reliable, as can be seen from the fact that one in four of the appeals determined in the last quarter of 2008 was successful. In those cases where the applicant's case was judicially found to be valid, he ought not to be penalised and, at the very least, the time between refusal of the application and the determination of the appeal should count towards the qualifying period. The amendment says that the whole time spent awaiting determination of the claim should be treated as falling within that qualifying period.
	Since the general aim of the Government's naturalisation policy is to promote greater integration, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, said in Committee, the logical and right solution would be to treat the whole of the time from first application to successful determination as part of the qualifying period. This, again, is referred to in the JCHR report as being part of the UNHCR's convention, to which we are signatories. In the unlikely event of reaching the target of six months for the conclusion of new asylum claims by the end of 2011, it would still be perverse to make refugees escaping persecution wait an average of half a year longer than ordinary migrants to become citizens. We hope to persuade the Government to give the matter further consideration.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, on the one hand one must be grateful to the Government for tabling some amendments in response to our discussions on these points. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, the amendments do not seem to go far enough. I remind the Minister that we are talking here about people to whom the terms "failed" or "bogus" are not applicable. We are talking about people whose cases have been accepted as legitimate. They have been accepted as refugees or in need of humanitarian protection and they are entitled, eventually, to become citizens. The UNHCR is very clear about what we need to do to comply with our international obligations on this matter. I very much hope that the Government will listen to what the UNHCR has been saying to those of us involved since this Bill came before us—and what it continues to say—about what we need to do to comply, which is to treat refugees as the international community expects and as, in the past, this country has always tried to do.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I will try to respond to all items in this group, including the government amendments. I will start with the JCHR recommendations, which we have had little time to study. I can advise noble Lords that our officials have corresponded recently with the UNHCR and sought to address the points that it raises. Importantly, the Government are clear that we do not believe that our proposed changes are incompatible with Article 34. Although there is nothing in current UK nationality law or our proposal that specifically facilitates the acquisition of nationality by refugees, the residence requirements are not unduly onerous for any applicant. It is possible for refugees to be naturalised. Any decisions not to naturalise are taken in good faith.
	Only six years' lawful residence will be required, or just three years if the applicant is married to a British citizen, ensuring that the active citizen condition is met in both cases. It is therefore possible for all refugees to be naturalised if they meet certain statutory criteria and these criteria are justifiable. Furthermore, we do not believe that, by not counting time spent in temporary admission for purposes of naturalisation, the UK is penalising refugees for illegal entry or breaching Article 31 of the 1951 convention. Nothing in the earned citizenship clauses of the Bill imposes criminal sanctions on refugees who enter the UK illegally.
	It might be helpful if I explain that the existing requirement not to be in breach of immigration laws, as inserted by Clause 46, is concerned with a person holding the correct sort of status in the UK rather than with commission of offences. In future, as now, any commission of criminal offences will be taken into account in assessing whether an applicant has the separate requirement of good character on the date of the application for naturalisation in Schedule 1 to the BNA 1981. As noble Lords know, we have tabled amendments to ensure that the earned citizenship clauses provide a discretion to waive the requirement to have had a qualified immigration status for the whole of the qualifying period in relation to applications made under Section 6(1) and (2) of the British Nationality Act. Having this discretion will give the necessary flexibility to the system that we are creating. In the case of refugees, we would usually expect to exercise it where undue delay has occurred in determining an asylum application or where the delay was not attributable to the applicant. I will go into further detail as we go through the amendments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, commented on his discussions with my noble friend Lord West. We gave an assurance that we would table amendments and we have done so. However, his Amendment 41 goes further than the Government's intent and would allow refugees to count any time spent in the UK since entry, including time spent pending an asylum decision, towards the qualifying period for naturalisation. I would like to develop the point. No doubt noble Lords will have looked at the government amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord West. They ensure that the discretion to waive the requirement for a qualifying immigration status for the whole of the qualifying period is included in the Bill, thus providing the necessary flexibility. I have described where it might be applied, which is where there is a question of undue delay.
	As I explained in Committee, we do not feel that allowing those who are subsequently recognised as refugees to automatically count the time spent in the UK pending a decision on their asylum claim towards the qualifying period for naturalisation is the right approach. For example, if we provided an exemption on the face of the Bill specifically for refugees, this would have counterproductive results. First, if a person applied for asylum on arrival in the UK and subsequently absconded and then some months or even years later came to light and was recognised as a refugee, we would have to count the time during which he had absconded towards the qualifying period for naturalisation. It seems wrong to reward an abscondee in this way when others who comply with the process must complete the temporary residence and probationary citizenship stages. It would also go against our aim to increase compliance with the system. Similarly, if an individual failed to comply with the system, by not attending interviews, for example, we would not want that time to count automatically towards the qualifying period.
	Another important point is that in asylum cases a decision is based on the prevailing circumstances at the time when the case is actually considered, in addition to taking into account the facts of the claim when it was originally made. For example, the fact that a person may be recognised as a refugee does not always mean that he was so from the start. Events in the country of origin, fresh evidence or fresh case law could mean that the person qualifies as a refugee only after the initial application was made. The amendment would mean that a person who may have had no basis to his claim at the time when it was made could nevertheless count that time pending his decision towards his qualifying period. UKBA is seeking to determine asylum claims as quickly as possible and has made considerable progress; the period of six months was mentioned. We do not consider that the time taken to resolve asylum applications represents a significant disadvantage in the majority of cases.
	I reassert the Government's full commitment to meeting their international obligations in respect of those fleeing persecution. However, we do not propose to go as far as permitting any time spent in detention, on temporary admission or on temporary release, or any time spent pending an application for leave to remain in connection with an asylum or human rights claim, to count towards the qualifying period for naturalisation. We will use discretion where this is appropriate.
	Amendment 37 would amend the Bill so that the qualifying period for persons granted refugee status or humanitarian protection is fixed at five years. I must also resist this amendment. Under the present system—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Will he explain what incentives are to be built in, under his approach, to encourage the machinery to deal with refugee claims more expeditiously? How is the Home Office going to be made to operate more quickly? How will having a broad discretion make the system work better, rather than lead to yet more arguments and perhaps more litigation and thus slow the whole thing down? In terms only of the efficiency of the machine, I do not understand from what the Minister has said how this is going to encourage officials to get on with it and how it will make the whole thing work better. The more discretion one gives, the more likely it is that there will be more arguments and in the end higher costs, to the detriment of the public interest.

Lord Brett: My Lords, the short and simple answer to the question put by the noble Lord is that the UKBA has set itself targets to resolve all fresh asylum claims within six months. Clearly, if a case such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, carries on for 18 months through no fault of the applicant, that is a clear case where the exercise of discretion can be used for the purpose of resolving undue delay.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but will he say something about how the discretion would be exercised, instead of saying how it would not? He has given two examples. One was the case where the person absconded before his claim was determined. He then resurfaced and was successful. The other was where the circumstances in the country of origin had changed so that the person became a refugee at some point during the currency of his application being determined. However, those are not normal cases. What we are talking about is the normal run of asylum cases where a person complies with all the rules that are imposed on him, but in the end he has to wait around for a year or 18 months. Is it not then reasonable and in compliance with the passage from the convention quoted by the JCHR for that time to be counted towards his legitimate stay in the country for the purpose of determining his claim?

Lord Brett: My Lords, it depends on how that period of time is defined and whether it is defined as the excess period beyond which it would be reasonable to expect the UKBA to have dealt with an application. We are looking at a target of six months, so, if it took 18 months, it is clear that something must have gone wrong. If it is unlikely that it was the fault of the applicant, this would be a case where it would be right to exercise discretion.
	The question that arises is what we mean by "undue delay". That is where guidance will be developed to deal with the circumstances where we should exercise the discretion. In broad terms, discretion will be exercised where undue delay has occurred, which would be a delay that extended significantly beyond the timescale applying to the majority of applicants. If we have a target of six months and we meet it for the vast majority, but for some reason some individuals encounter delays beyond that period, the balance of time beyond the normal period of six months would be the argument for using discretion to allow it to count.
	Perhaps I may return to my response to the amendments. The noble Lord has asked me several questions and I should like a little time to think about them and return to them before the end of my remarks. As I said a moment ago, Amendment 37 would make the qualifying period a fixed one of five years. We shall also seek to resist this. Under the present grounds for refugee status or humanitarian protection, someone can qualify for citizenship after a minimum of six years. Our proposed provisions maintain this position and we do not consider that there are strong arguments for reducing the period for those on the protection route.
	As has been said, we want refugees to follow the path to citizenship and fulfil the criteria of that path in the same way as other migrants do. We have designed the path so that it encourages migrants to integrate with their local communities. I know that noble Lords share my objective of improving the extent to which migrants integrate into our society. That must be equally true of refugee migrants as it is for those who arrive by other routes. Removing the requirement that refugees must meet the same criteria as other migrants to qualify for citizenship would do nothing to assist their integration, so I must respectfully resist this amendment.
	Finally, Amendment 52 would ensure that persons with a pending application for leave to remain, pursuant to an asylum or human rights claim, are not treated as being in the UK in breach of the immigration laws where they go on to be granted leave to remain. The requirement not to be in breach is relevant only to those whose qualifying period has started and, as I said, in the case of those seeking protection the qualifying period will normally start only when they are granted leave on that basis. In those cases where we choose to exercise the new discretion—for a delay, or whatever—to count periods before the date of leave being granted towards the qualifying period, we will also apply discretion to waive the requirement not to be in breach, where that is a necessity.
	I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will accept that the amendments that we are putting forward are intended to meet the concerns that they have raised. Therefore, I hope that in moving those amendments we will be able to persuade the noble Lords and the noble Baroness not to press the other amendments.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister has, no doubt, done a very good job in resisting my amendment, but I invite him to explain the precise effect of the five amendments that the Government have tabled.

Lord Brett: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, the Government sought to meet the concerns raised by the Liberal amendments put forward at that stage and, by increasing discretion, for example, to move towards meeting the point on undue delay that has been repeated today. Therefore, I believe that while there is no resistance in this House to the government amendments, there is some concern about the broader system that we are putting in place. There also seems to be some concern about discretion. However, as I said, guidance will be developed on that. In the mean time, I hope that the normal cases that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to would be those that we can deal with quite easily—if we are not talking about the exceptions—once we have a clear understanding of what delay we are talking about. We believe that such a delay would be beyond that normally associated with a swift determination of refugee status, which would be six months.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in answering that question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is the Minister saying that the discretion in the Bill is unfettered but that guidance will be given that, while not legally binding, will somehow be taken into account? Is that the position? If the discretion is unfettered, that seems inappropriate. If the Minister is saying that there will be guidance that will, in some way, limit and define the discretion, that position is much more acceptable. I am not clear what he is saying on that.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I was saying that guidance will be developed; I thought that I was clear on that point, if nothing else. On the argument that exceptional cases do not make good examples and that the more normal application problem is that which the noble Lord outlined—namely, that of undue delay—the answer is: yes, there will be discretion, and guidance will be developed to meet those problems and to assist in a speedy resolution.
	I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Government Amendment 30 will ensure that the earned citizenship clause in the Bill allows for discretion to waive the requirement to have the qualifying immigration status for the whole of the qualifying period. Having that discretion will give the flexibility that we believe the system that we are creating needs. In the case of refugees, we would expect to exercise that discretion where we have the undue delay factor, or others, so the guidance will be developed to give officials an understanding of what "undue delay" means and how to apply the discretion. I do not think that I can add anything else.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, with regard to Amendment 24, I am extremely grateful to at least five of your Lordships, in all parts of the House, who spoke in its support. If this debate does one thing and speeds up the rate at which the Government deal with the huge backlog of asylum applications, that will be major progress. At the moment, the backlog far exceeds the annual number of new cases that the Government are so pleased to be dealing with within six months. I hope that we shall hear further explanation of the precise meaning of the government amendments. While I shall need to study the Government's reply and to take further advice, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 24.
	Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Lord Brett: My Lords, as it is 7.26 pm, and both the Front Benches have now been going for some time and with some great effort, it might be appropriate if we were to take the break now.
	Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.26 pm.

Corporation Tax Bill
	 — 
	Second Reading

Moved By Lord Davies of Oldham
	That the Bill be read a second time.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this Bill rewrites certain basic provisions such as the charge to corporation tax and provisions used by companies in computing their income. The main aim is to make the legislation clearer, better structured and easier to use than the source legislation, which is often dense and difficult to follow. The Bill has been produced by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Tax Law Rewrite Project. It is the first of two Bills that will rewrite corporation tax. The second will be introduced later this year, along with another which will rewrite international and other provisions, some of which apply for the purposes of both income tax and corporation tax. The work follows the success of the project's previous Acts which rewrote the capital allowances and income tax legislation.
	I should explain that the Bill has been certified as a money Bill. It was introduced into Parliament in another place at the beginning of last December. Under the special procedures applying to tax law rewrite Bills, the substantive debate on Second Reading was held in Committee. The Bill then passed to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, where it was considered on 27 January. The Joint Committee included among its members the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lady Goudie. I am grateful to them for their efforts in scrutinising the Bill, and to Sir Peter Viggers MP who chaired the Committee. The Bill then passed back to the House of Commons for its Third Reading and is now before us for its remaining stages, which the rules say can be taken in one day.
	It is beyond the remit of the project to make any significant changes in tax policy, so it takes great care to preserve the effects of the legislation. It can, however, make very minor agreed changes; for example, to remove ambiguity, repeal obsolete material or correct minor, unintended anomalies. To ensure that any changes made are within the remit of the project, they are considered during an extensive, detailed and thorough consultation process involving the project's consultative committee, whose members are drawn from the main tax professional and business representative bodies. The work is overseen by an independent steering committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, whom I am pleased to see in his place and who will contribute to our proceedings a little later. It includes Members from both Houses, the judiciary, business and consumer groups and the accountancy and legal professions.
	The extensive consultation process that I mentioned involved publication for public comment of papers containing almost all the clauses in the Bill, and the Bill was also published in draft form for another round of consultation. In addition, groups of private sector specialists met the project to consider the detail of some of the more complex provisions so that the views of those who are the main users of the legislation were taken fully into account. Throughout the process, proposed minor changes in the law were specifically drawn to the attention of consultees; no minor changes in the law were included in this Bill without the considered approval of both the project's committees.
	The Joint Committee of both Houses heard oral evidence from members of the Tax Law Rewrite Project team. It considered and accepted all the government amendments to the Bill, all of which it agreed were of a minor, technical nature. The Joint Committee concluded that the Bill is a welcome clarification of the existing law and, as a result, it will be easier to use and more accessible to Parliament, the judiciary, informed professionals, business people and other users of the legislation. It was satisfied that the changes of the law in the Bill are of very minor significance.
	The success of the project in improving the accessibility of the legislation to users has been borne out by independent market research, which showed that in the main, users of rewritten legislation warmly welcomed it. It was seen to be of particular help to those newly entering the profession. Consultees have also been positive about the project's work.
	It would be wrong of me to conclude without paying tribute to everyone who has taken part in this important work. There are many consultees who have given their time and have used their considerable expertise to consider the detail of the rewritten clauses. As with all rewrite Bills, tax professionals who provide expert comment already understand the legislation and, therefore, have the least to gain from the rewritten provisions. Their selfless contribution to the consultation process for the benefit of the wider range of tax professionals who use the legislation is therefore particularly welcome.
	We owe a particular debt to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for his service as chairman of the steering committee and to the members of both the project's committees for their expert input and guidance. This is an extremely worthwhile project with a track record that shows that it makes our direct tax legislation more modern, clearer and easier to use. The Bill maintains the high standards achieved in the project's previous Acts and will make the legislation more accessible to Parliament, the tax professions, business and the judiciary. I commend it to the House.

Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this debate, and apologise that I was not in my place for his initial remarks. Nevertheless, I am very privileged to be allowed to speak in this debate.
	It is interesting that, although at 821 pages this Bill is the longest ever to appear before the House, the list of speakers at this Second Reading and remaining stages debate is one of the shortest. Indeed, until I somewhat rashly decided to add my name last night, no Back-Bench speaker at all had expressed an interest in participating in this debate. That is rather a pity, because the structure as well as the applicable rate of corporation tax are of great importance in ensuring that our competitive position as a preferred location for foreign companies to set up businesses or establish their European headquarters is protected and enhanced. Unfortunately, the competitive advantage that the United Kingdom formerly enjoyed in terms of comparative corporation tax rates has significantly eroded under the present Government, which made it all the more important that the rewrite of corporation tax legislation should have enhanced our competitive position in its structure and simplicity. This it has singularly failed to do.
	It was originally envisaged that the Tax Law Rewrite Project introduced by the Conservative Government in 1996 would make legislation clearer and more user-friendly by adopting consistent terminology, shorter sentences and better use of definitions. However, the areas of overlap between income tax and corporation tax are relatively limited. The rewriting of the overlapping parts, in order to achieve consistency, was justified; but was it worth while rewriting the parts that do not overlap if that rewrite failed to achieve clarity, simplicity and, therefore, international competitiveness? Does the Minister not agree that the Government have missed a trick in failing to use this opportunity to make the UK corporation tax system simpler and more internationally competitive?
	It is generally believed that UK tax law is uncompetitive and overly complex. This hits smaller firms hardest, as they are the least able to afford the enormous cost of obtaining enough external advice. World Bank data show that countries with clearer tax laws collect 6 per cent to 10 per cent more tax revenues than those whose tax laws are complicated and difficult to understand. Is the Minister confident that the expensive resources that the Government committed to this rewrite project, which has achieved so little, were justified? Did the Government consider the alternatives, such as leaving the legislation alone and providing better guidance instead? Unless rewrites achieve benefits in brevity and simplicity, they place a great unwelcome burden on the accounting profession, in that experts who knew the tax law well have to start again and relearn the law.
	The absolute rate of corporation tax is more important than the structure, but this Government's extreme profligacy over a decade has ensured that they are in no position, even partially, to restore our competitive position in terms of the rate of corporation tax. It is a pity that, with this 821-page blockbuster Bill, they have also failed to do anything material to improve our position in terms of structure, complexity, clarity or length of our corporation tax law. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend will forgive me if, as chairman of the steering committee, I do not follow him too far down the path. While I shall look forward to the Minister's no doubt carefully phrased reply to the remarks that have just been made, as a former Minister myself—although not a Treasury Minister—I accept that there is a big difference between clarifying the existing law and simplification, which inevitably involves policy decisions and political consequences in terms of gainers and losers that, frankly, no Government would wish to put into commission to the sort of accelerated procedure that applies to these Bills. Nevertheless, it is fair to acknowledge also—and I am sure that the Minister will—that there is quite a demand among practitioners for the sort of simplification for which my noble friend has called, even though it is not the business of the committee that I chair or of the tax law rewrite project to deliver it.
	I shall speak only briefly, not least because, although chair of the steering committee, I was indisposed at the time of the Joint Committee meeting and unable to attend it. I thank the Government, through the Minister, for bringing forward the Bill. I also thank my colleagues on both the steering committee and the consultative committee for their labours, to which the Minister rightly paid tribute, taking into account the volume of paper that they had to wade through. The weight of the documents—even the weight of the Explanatory Memorandum—is such that I have not strained myself by bringing them into the Chamber. I also congratulate the band of dedicated officials led by Dr Steve Batterby, and the parliamentary draftsmen, whose diligence needs no demonstration beyond the size of the papers that we are discussing. Even the Explanatory Memorandum must be among the longest ever seen.
	I hope that the House will support what I believe—notwithstanding the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard—has been a very worthwhile and certainly substantial effort.

Lord Newby: My Lords, as the Minister said, this is the third product of the tax law rewrite project, and the heaviest to date. I start by congratulating, and possibly commiserating with, those officials who had to labour so long on such a huge piece of work. I hope that they feel that their efforts have been adequately rewarded, and that the accountancy profession will thank them, sotto voce at least, for a formidable piece of intellectual work.
	Of course we support the project and the Bill. The problem is that this exercise does not deal with the principal problem facing British tax law, which is that it is far too complicated, to such a point that even when it is written in clear language, it is extremely difficult for anyone except the most erudite practitioner to have the faintest idea how it applies in many cases. As the Minister is aware, there is a growing sense that we need to do something more fundamental than simply improve the drafting and clarity of this very complicated system.
	There are a number of proposals to do just that. Only today, the ACCA has produced a report entitled Is there a way out of the tax labyrinth? My first response was to say, "Given previous history, almost certainly not". However, the report raises issues, and makes a number of suggestions about how we might simplify tax law, ensuring, importantly, that as we build on the body of the law, we do not unnecessarily complicate it.
	The proposal from the ACCA is only one of many. Some elements seem very sensible. Others, such as the suggestion that we should abolish the annual Finance Bill, are ones that very few people in your Lordships' House or another place would think show the way forward. However, the report is a useful contribution to the debate. Another significant contribution is the report undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, which made proposals for simplifying the law, and looked at how we might make sure that, as we bring forward new law, we avoid some of the mistakes of the past.
	There is quite a ferment in this narrow area among people who are worried about the law and are thinking hard about how to improve the system. Of course, there is one area where ferment appears not to have had any impact, and that is in the Government. They have shown absolutely no interest in simplifying the law. When the current Prime Minister was Chancellor, he had a schoolboyishly macho desire to ensure that every Finance Bill was longer than its predecessor. If that was his aim, he was extremely successful, because with every passing year, the Finance Bill got longer, to such an extent that he is personally responsible for adding several thousand pages to the body of tax legislation. That, as a principle and a process, is madness. Much of the law is virtually incomprehensible. It is not accessible to those who are unable to pay expensive accountants to unravel it for them. I would welcome any hope that the Minister can give us that the Government might at least take seriously some of the ideas about procedures and simplification processes, and possibly even come forward with proposals of their own.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in yet another milestone in the work of the tax law rewrite project. The Bill before us, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, is the longest ever considered in Parliament. I thought I could claim that record with the Company Law Bill a couple of years ago, but that has now been surpassed. It is perhaps disappointing that on such an historic occasion there are so few noble Lords here to record the event.
	We support the Bill, as we have supported previous tax law rewrite Bills. The process that has led to this Bill seems exemplary. It features true cross-party working and builds on work of technical excellence. There has been little external complaint or comment on the Bill.
	As the Minister explained, these Bills do not set out to change tax law, though inevitably there are minor changes that are set out with complete clarity in the documentation supporting the Bill.
	It is now customary for these Bills to take a wide power to rewrite the law, as a consequence of things not going right, and this Bill is no exception. However, we are content with the power taken, and pleased that the Government have again committed to not using the power to alter legislation before consulting the tax law rewrite committees. That is entirely satisfactory.
	I will place on record the appreciation of these Benches for those who have striven mightily in the tax law rewrite project. The project was kicked off by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor. He now chairs the Joint Committee of both Houses on the tax law rewrite Bills. The steering committee, now admirably chaired by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, who I am delighted is in his place this evening, was originally chaired by my noble and learned friend, Lord Howe of Aberavon. The Minister may note that Ministers with or without Treasury experience who find themselves on these Benches may well have a home waiting for them in the tax law rewrite process.
	The real work is of course done by HMRC's tax law rewrite project, overseen by the steering group and assisted by a consultative committee made up of practitioners. The quality and quantity of work involved is amazing, and we admire hugely the work that has gone in to producing this very complex Bill.
	The Bill, for all its virtues, does not assist in the reduction of the tax code. Last year we passed India in having the longest tax code, and the net effect of the Bill, even after the repeal of a large amount of existing legislation, will not help us to lose that dubious accolade.
	The Minister in another place said that the Bill would reduce costs for taxpayers by £25 million a year. I have no idea on what that figure is based, but I do not believe it. I do not think that the rewrite project needs flimsy calculations of cost savings to justify it. Its main virtue lies in showing how tax legislation can be drafted in simpler and more accessible language, and it sets a standard for all kinds of future legislation. The Minister referred to the fact that it has been welcomed by practitioners, and I am sure that it is helpful. Equally, however, I am not sure that it answers enough of the questions about our tax law-making process. Simplification simply does not go far enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has already mentioned, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon produced a report last year on making taxes simpler. If my party gets an opportunity, we intend to implement his proposals for an office of tax simplification, which would really pursue the issues that have been spoken about this evening.
	My noble and learned friend's proposals also included Finance Bill clauses being published at the time of the PBR, so that there was a long time for proper scrutiny. He also recommended, rightly, that the skills of your Lordships' House in scrutiny, which are sadly not currently allowed to be used in the Finance Bill, would be brought into that process. The convention that has kept our House away from detailed involvement with tax legislation has been to the detriment of the public and keeping us away from the detailed drafting of the Finance Bill is not necessary for the preservation of Commons privilege—we have no intention whatever of challenging that.
	The involvement of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon with the movement for simpler taxes goes back a long way. Researching for this evening's debate, I found reference to a pamphlet published by the Bow Group in 1969 written by my noble and learned friend together with my noble friend Lord Lamont over 40 years ago. Many of their themes in that pamphlet about the need for radical simplification were echoed in the report of the Tax Reform Commission which my noble friend Lord Forsyth produced two years ago.
	The need for tax simplification has got much greater over the past 10 years because we have had a decade of hugely complex tax legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, the Government have been complacent about the way in which they have over-complicated the tax system and been complacent about its effects. Businesses need many things from the tax system that they have not been given in the past decade. They need long-term stability, certainty and simplicity. The endless tinkering, about-turns and short-termism that has driven the development of tax policy over the past 10 years has, frankly, driven businesses crazy.
	The CBI recently published a tax task force report, setting out how uncompetitive our tax system has become. The Government like to quote a 2007 study that said that the UK topped the G7 league for ease of paying tax—if there is such a thing—and for the time taken in compliance. However, as the CBI reminded us, as long as the Government are satisfied with benchmarking the UK against the G7, we will fail to be truly competitive in a global sense.
	The highly respected annual global competitiveness report issued by the World Economic Forum shows that we have been slipping down the overall competitiveness league tables. We used to be near the top and now we are not even in the top 10. On tax, we are in the bottom half of the 134 countries surveyed for the extent and effect of tax. Two of the biggest issues which cause problems for those doing business in our country are the tax regime and tax rates. Put simply, we need to reverse that trend and simplification is one route.
	I am sure that there will be no simplification from this Government and I regret that. However, perhaps it will not be too long before another Government will have an opportunity to make real change to our tax code. In the mean time, we welcome the Bill.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I shall resist the invitation of the noble Baroness to brush up my rewrite skills on the basis that I might be able to perform that function in due course. "In due course" is so far away that I can scarcely envisage it. Therefore, I will stick to the more prosaic matters of presenting the government policy from the Dispatch Box.
	I had presumed that there would be one or two obvious criticisms of the process we have gone through with the Bill. Not a Bill comes before Parliament without being subject to critical scrutiny, but I had not quite expected the principled ferocity of the trenchant attack of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I can only say to him that I accept that there is always an argument for greater simplification, a point amplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who has done so on numerous occasions. However, I cited institutions that have played their part in the consultations on this measure, and the actual process of and clarification involved in the rewrite won widespread support and has been commended for its success. The noble Viscount must give us some credit for the fact that those who must use this legislation benefit from the rewrite, which helps, if not to bring about the level of simplification that he would wish, nevertheless to bring real benefits.
	A full impact assessment was published on the benefits and costs of the project's work. The noble Lord will recognise just how difficult it is to produce quantitative evaluations of effectiveness, but users have been positive about all previous rewrite Acts. We have had positive responses to this legislation indicating that the benefits outweigh the costs, which are about £6 million. We estimate that the monetary benefits of tax-law rewrites for this Bill, although difficult to quantify, are about £25 million. I am of course open to challenge on those statistics, but the noble Lord will give the Government credit for seeking to evaluate benefits and costs, which come down on the plus side.
	On simplification, the last Finance Bill was concerned with clarification; a fair number of the clauses set out to do precisely that. Of course, clarification and making something simpler often involve, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, indicated, a policy choice. The moment one has a policy choice, one is into a different form of legislation—the consideration of the Finance Bill and the length of time that the other place has to devote to that—whereas this Bill can only come before the House as it has, and could only proceed through Parliament as it has, including through the other House. Essentially, there is no intent to change the law with it, merely to simplify it and make it more user-friendly.
	I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said. The noble Baroness backed him to a degree by saying, "Well, what is this comparison with these other countries? We will never get improvements in our taxation when we compare ourselves with the G7". Compare ourselves with the G7? In terms of the ease of paying taxes and responses to the taxation system, we are at the top of the league. I know that the noble Baroness does not need reminding, but if she disparages the G7, I remind her that that league places Britain as better than Canada, better than Germany, better than the United States, better than France, better than Japan and better than Italy. If the noble Baroness says, "Well, of course, that merely shows that we are uncompetitive", then we are in a strange global economy.
	If the noble Baroness is indicating that some of the new tigers of the financial world have a different position on taxation, that is a debate for another occasion. The Government can establish that in this area, against the criteria we are discussing, we bear favourable comparison with the great economies of the world. Therefore, I do not accept being chided by the noble Baroness on that point. However, I accept the points she made on the necessity of striving continually to make taxation simpler and easier to understand. Of course, we all recognise that the Bill has a minor role in that respect, but one which was created in 1996—I pay tribute to her party for that—before the present Administration entered office. As she rightly said, the chairs of the committee are members of her party, and I pay due regard to that. We are building on those proposals and the Bill is the outcome.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, indicated in his brief contribution, the Bill is a product of very substantial expert work. The very act of simplifying and seeking to make the legislation more intelligible without raising policy issues is itself a very deft art and we should pay due regard to the skill with which the objectives have been fulfilled by those involved in the rewrite exercise, and to the techniques which they have been obliged to use.
	We could not debate finance without an element of controversy entering the discussion, nor could I ever stand at this Dispatch Box opposite the noble Baroness without knowing that she will make one or two pertinent points to which I have to respond. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was more generous. I understand exactly what he says—if we can translate legislation so that we are able to increase the understanding of ordinary citizens and the owners of small businesses to enable them to look after their affairs a great deal better, we shall make progress. However, business life is complex. We have a complex economy with complex demands and when the public articulate a demand for a change in taxation and politicians seek to respond to that, it often results in a variation of existing measures. It results in qualification and often in extra complexity because in a very real sense people's lives are becoming more specialised, as are processes and economic operations, and taxation is bound to follow. Oh for the days of William Pitt and the 2p rate of income tax. There are pretty good reasons why we cannot go back 200 years although the noble Lord, Lord Newton, would have found his task a good deal easier if the brief had permitted a return to those halcyon days.
	I emphasise that we have support for this rewrite measure. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales supports the way in which the measure has been drawn up. It has reservations about particular points but not sufficient to have occasioned great anxiety in the other place or here this evening. The Bill is a product of considerable work. I pay tribute to the work of all those who contributed to the measure. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for the work that he does with regard to the committee.
	Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
	Sitting suspended.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

5th Report Constitution Committee
	7th Report Constitution Committee

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

Amendment 25
	 Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
	25: Clause 39, page 29, line 19, leave out "probationary citizenship leave" and insert "limited leave to enter or remain"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we have tabled this amendment so that we have another opportunity to discuss probationary citizenship leave. The discussion in Committee was quite frustrating, because we spent a lot of time on the name "probationary citizenship" rather than on the principle of what it adds to the citizenship journey. It was clear from the government amendments and the debate in Committee that the Government's drafting and thinking on the amendments are not as advanced as they ought to be. Given that the Government propose to introduce a draft Bill in October, there is the opportunity to return to these provisions when thinking is a bit more advanced and the proposals are sufficiently developed for us to scrutinise them.
	As drafted, probationary citizenship is no more than another name for temporary or limited leave, which is why our amendment seeks to actually call it what it is. As named now, it contributes to the complexity of the Government's naturalisation proposals. It gives the impression, by renaming it, that something new and different is being proposed, when it is actually the same process by another name. While we are on the matter of the name, it is worth noting that the consultation threw up the fact that the very word "probationary" has negative overtones and makes people tend to think of someone who has done something wrong and is on probation. I am sure that is not the Government's intention—I am sure that they have heard this view before—but it would be good, if they intend to change the terminology, if they could think of something more positive.
	The main reason to question this again is that the debates we had before dinner have shown very clearly that we are talking about the same process but simply renaming it. I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate what the Government's thinking is on what this actually adds to the object that we are all trying to achieve, which is to have a much better assimilation programme. We do not feel that simply renaming it in this way is the strongest way of achieving it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I support the amendment, because we need some clarity on what just changing names does. I am not at all clear either why we could not stay with the names that people understand and know. The only people who are not going to get confused are those who are coming into the system right at the beginning. Sometimes it is better just to leave things as they were. The noble Baroness has put it very well. We are trying to do something that makes things better, not just tinker around with the words.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I appreciate the contributions by both noble Baronesses. I recall in Committee being upbraided by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for getting into the argument about the name, when he made the point, which has been made again tonight, that it is a question of substance and what it actually means and does. I will try to deal with those principal points of concern in turn.
	First, it is argued that "probationary citizenship" is merely further limited leave and as such it should simply be called that, and doing otherwise merely serves to complicate the system. That was, succinctly, the position of the noble Baroness. I agree that probationary citizenship is, legally, a grant of further limited leave to remain. We have made no secret of this. The question is on the second point, where the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that it is the same system by another name. We do not believe that it is. I strongly disagree with the point that it adds nothing to the system other than to complicate it. We would argue that it supports our aim to make the path to citizenship clearer for migrants and the public. Our proposals set out a much clearer architecture than exists at present, by simplifying the multiplicity of routes to citizenship and replacing them with three clear routes—the work route, the family route and the protection route—and three clear stages: temporary residence, probationary citizenship and British citizenship or permanent residence.
	There have been suggestions that another stage is being put in, but that is not so. At present, all migrants must pass through two stages—limited leave, then indefinite leave to remain—to qualify for citizenship. Under the new system, they must still pass through two stages to get to citizenship; namely, temporary residence and probationary citizenship.
	A second accusation is that probationary citizenship serves no purpose and offers no benefit to the migrant. That is not correct. The new stage of probationary citizenship marks out that migrants who qualify for it have already started to make a significant step on the road to citizenship; probationary citizens are eligible to naturalise if they meet the requirements. All migrants, whether they intend to stay here for one day or for ever, start off as temporary residents, subject to certain exceptions, such as gateway refugees who get permanent residence on arrival. There are no distinctions between migrants in terms of the leave that they have; they are all temporary residents. But it is not possible for migrants in this first stage to progress directly to citizenship/permanent residence. Only those who make that significant step to probationary citizenship are in the privileged position of being able to naturalise. That hugely significant benefit to the migrant should be acknowledged; it gives them a distinct status and it is our way of acknowledging that step.
	I also reject the suggestion that probationary citizenship does not encourage integration. Once a migrant takes that significant step towards citizenship by qualifying for probationary citizenship, our aim is to give them a distinct form of leave with a distinct name so that their minds will be focused on the fact that they now have to choose whether and when they wish to apply for citizenship. If they wish to qualify for citizenship, they can do so in a minimum of one year if they do active citizenship. We think that by introducing probationary citizenship, we will encourage migrants to make a conscious choice about their long-term future in the UK.
	At the same time, giving this group a distinct type of leave helps to demonstrate to the UK public that these people are making a significant commitment and have advanced on the path to citizenship, thus promoting community cohesion. We want to encourage all migrants who qualify to stay in the UK permanently to take up full British citizenship. We think that this is the best way to facilitate the full integration of a migrant into UK society. Under the old system, in which migrants passed from limited leave to remain to indefinite leave to remain before being eligible for citizenship, there was little incentive to apply for citizenship as the terms of ILR are similar to those of British citizenship. However, by introducing probationary citizenship we are rectifying this. There are significant benefits to the migrants of being a citizen compared with having probationary citizenship and they can qualify for citizenship more quickly than they can permanent residence. As such, by introducing probationary citizenship, we are creating strong incentives for migrants who qualify to stay here permanently to take up full British citizenship and thus integrate more effectively into UK society. I am sure that the whole House supports efforts to improve integration.
	Noble Lords will appreciate that what I have stated leads us to the conclusion that the stage should be called "probationary citizenship". Indeed, as I stated in Committee, I am more than happy to consider other names if someone can suggest a preferable alternative. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that a positive term would be welcome. My judgment of "probation" is not the same as that held by people with a background in law and order. However, at present, I do not think that the phrase "limited leave to remain" improves the proposals, as we would lose the advantages that I have outlined which "probationary citizenship" would attract. For the same reason, I do not think that the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in Committee of "interim leave to remain" is an improvement. We want to make it clear that the migrant has advanced on the path to citizenship and neither suggestion does that. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, suggested the term "qualifying citizenship" as an alternative. While that has its merits, our concern is that it does not quite capture the essence of the stage, in that, at that point, the migrant is on probation and, if they so wish, can prove that they have earned the right to citizenship.
	Therefore, I continue to consider that "probationary citizenship" is the right term for this stage. As I have said, we do not suggest that that is the best phrase. If more positive and more effective names are put forward, we could be persuaded, at a later stage in the Bill, to make a substitution. In the mean time, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a positive run-through of how the Government see the situation. He left the door open at later stages, so I am sure that the other place will want to come back to this issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 25 withdrawn.
	Amendment 26
	 Moved by Lord Avebury
	26: Clause 39, page 29, line 25, leave out "been in continuous employment" and insert "not been in breach of conditions of that leave"

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in Committee we tried, with only partial success, to clarify what the Bill means by "in continuous employment". This is another attempt to get some clarification about how that term will be interpreted. We extracted from the noble Lord, Lord Brett, an acknowledgement that in the present economic circumstances migrants would often cease to be in employment, but he then added "for short periods". With 2 million people out of work, and that number rising, it is getting increasingly difficult for somebody who is thrown out of a job through redundancy or through the employer going bankrupt to find a new job, however widely he casts the net. The compelling circumstances may not be of that short a duration and victims of the recession are entitled to know how this discretion will be exercised.
	Like so many things in the Bill—we have discussed this before—everything will be left to guidance so that noble Lords and another place will have no say in what the final solution is to be. The noble Lord, Lord Brett, said that he took the point about domestic servants who leave an abusive employer and may not be able to get a reference, and he promised to let us have greater detail on how that problem will be tackled. Although the problem was raised in the context of domestic service, there may well be other circumstances where a reference is unobtainable. A case where the employer goes bankrupt is perhaps the most obvious. We also discussed what happens when the worker loses his job a few weeks before he comes to the end of probationary citizenship and the latitude that would exist when interpreting "continuous employment" in an elastic way that would allow that final period out of work to be overlooked. I presume there is to be guidance on all these questions, but we have to take it on trust that what comes out in the end, weeks after the Bill receives Royal Assent, would have been agreed by Parliament if we had been able to look at it. That is not a satisfactory way to legislate and makes a mockery of the idea that Parliament exercises control over the Executive.

Lord Brett: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, this amendment replicates the amendment we discussed in Committee. Various comments were made and concerns expressed at that stage. I hope that I can answer them in this reply.
	I am sympathetic to the spirit behind the amendment. I agree that the requirement that a migrant on the work route must be continuously employed should not be interpreted rigidly; that is why we have the discretion to waive this requirement where appropriate. The Government recognise that it is in no one's interest to refuse people who for the vast majority of the time have been contributing to the UK if they are subject to a relatively brief period of unemployment.
	I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, setting out details of what "continuous employment" means. I hope that he and the other noble Lords have had chance to read that correspondence. I will summarise the position. This requirement is wholly consistent and underlines the Government's clear policy that migrants who enter via the work route—for example, tiers 1 or 2 of the points-based system—are here to work or to be economically active. This is what the points-based system makes clear.
	To respond to the points raised in Committee, I was grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for raising the point that "continuous" is not same as "continual" and to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for reading us part of the UNISON briefing which asserted that "continuous employment" is a specific legal term that means that in the majority of cases an employee must be working for the same employer in order to qualify. The question was asked whether continuous employment means continuous employment with one employer. I confirm that it does not. We are absolutely clear that a person can meet the continuous employment requirement in the earned citizenship clauses where they change job, or types of job, or self-employment during the qualifying period. That will not be a disqualification.
	Within our guidance,which we are continuing to develop taking into account the helpful points raised by noble Lords in Committee, we will explain that a person need not have had the same employer throughout the qualifying period or have remained in the same business where he is self-employed. We will ensure that any definition of continuous employment takes into account the position of certain groups, such as entrepreneurs who may be company directors and therefore not technically employed.
	I was asked for further detail on how we exercise discretion to waive the requirements for individuals to have been in continuous employment. I reiterate that we expect that any discretion will be exercised sparingly and in deserving cases. However, as I said, the Government recognise that it is in no one's interest to refuse people who, for the vast majority of their time here have been contributing economically to the UK. In assessing whether to apply discretion, we would take into account a number of factors, including the person's overall employment record while in the UK; the length of time for which they have been out of work; and the explanation or evidence offered by the individual. I think that that deals with several points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about redundancy and bankruptcy, which is not necessarily anything that the individual migrant worker has any control over.
	A key point raised in Committee was how overseas domestic workers could be affected by the continuous employment requirements. As we confirmed, continuous employment does not need to be with one employer. We committed in our response to the Visitors Consultation to preserve the current arrangements, which can be summarised as follows.
	Overseas domestic workers in private households will remain a separate category outside the points-based system, while private servants in diplomatic households are included in the international agreement sub-category of tier 5. So we have two groups: those in domestic diplomatic households, who are covered by an international agreement on tier 5; and a separate category for domestic workers. We are committed to preserving that existing separate route for overseas domestic workers and the protection that it affords; and we will review it as appropriate after two years of operation of the new immigration system. We will also want to allow the anti-trafficking strategy to be properly road-tested.
	All overseas domestic workers currently have an avenue to settlement in the UK after five years' continuous employment. Overseas domestic workers in private households will, under requirements for obtaining probationary citizenship in this category, still be able to leave their employer and seek alternative work with another employer. That continues to enable domestic workers from overseas to remove themselves from abusive situations.
	Clause 39(7) gives discretion to waive the requirement to have been in continuous employment. We will carefully consider the exercise of that discretion, particularly in cases where overseas domestic workers have left their employment due to abuse.
	I hope that the assurances that I have given noble Lords will allow the withdrawal of the amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the final remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that the Government will carefully consider whether to waive the requirements in a case where the domestic worker left employment because of abuse by the employer, was not adequate. Surely those are precisely the circumstances in which the Minister should have been able to assure us that the discretion would be exercised. I cannot imagine why, if it is proved that a domestic worker was beaten up by the employer and that was the only reason they left, there should be any valid excuse for not using the discretion. I still feel anxious about the way in which the discretion is to be exercised, because there is no indication of how long a person can be without employment before the discretion ceases to be operative.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I want to offer at least my personal reassurance that when I used the term "consider carefully", my interpretation of that term is that one's attention would be drawn to the fact that there had been accusations of domestic abuse. Even if there was no guarantee that that could be proven, it would be a circumstance in which I would expect a very keen eye to be cast with a view to taking that discretion to a point where it relieved the abused migrant from a situation where they continued to be deprived because of their having left the household.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is a bit stronger than what the noble Lord said before, and I take some reassurance from that. Particularly in a case where the domestic worker is proved in a court of law to have suffered abuse, that should be conclusive, so the noble Lord should be able to say not that the discretion might be exercised there, but that it would be. It is a question of precision.
	I was in the middle of saying that no one who loses their job would be certain whether the Minister would even consider waiving, let alone decide to waive, the requirement. As I said initially, given the economic circumstances at present, it is increasingly difficult for anyone who is thrown out of work to find another employer, particularly in the same category. A person who comes in under a particular tier may be allowed to change employer, but will he have to seek employment within that category? If, for example, he comes in as a tier 1 professional and cannot find a job in his sphere, would he be allowed to take a much more humble job just to be certain that he does not come within the exclusions of the clause?
	Fundamentally, under the rules for the points-based system, a person is required to be and to continue to be in work, so I question the necessity of having such a discretion in the Bill. Would the noble Lord agree that under the points-based system adequate safeguards already exist to make sure that a person remains in work, so we should not try to gloss it in the Bill?

Lord Brett: My Lords, I am slightly surprised by those last comments because I thought that the concerns of noble Lords in Committee was that when considering continuous employment we should not be so rigid as to reject someone whose unemployment came from a situation beyond their control for a relatively short period. The noble Lord raised the question of how the condition interacts with the employment requirements under the points-based system. I recognise that migrants on work routes will have further conditions attached to their leave, such as not having recourse to public funds. Migrants granted leave under tier 2 may have that leave curtailed if they are out of employment for more than 60 days. I do not think that that makes the continuous employment requirement unnecessary. It is wholly consistent with, and underlines, the Government's clear policy that migrants are here to work and to be economically active. By having a discretion, we can apply a human face, which we are often accused of not applying when coming up against rules and hard cases. I had hoped that what I was saying about continuous employment not being with the same employer would be more encouraging to the noble Lord than it has been.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am a little encouraged. The noble Lord said that a person in tier 2 can be out of work for up to 60 days under the employment rules. Is he now saying that when Ministers come to exercise their discretion under the Bill, they will always excuse someone who has been out of work for as much as 60 days, and that the discretion only comes into play if you exceed the limits in the existing tier requirements?
	Can he also deal with my other question that if a person is in, say tier 2—it does not matter which tier—and he cannot get a job in the category under which he came in, would he be permitted to accept less professional or less advanced work without forfeiting his right to apply for citizenship at the end of the period?

Lord Brett: My Lords, I have some difficulty in a sense. I was trying to signal that in the current employment situation, which the noble Lord used as background at the start of his contribution, there would be hope that the discretion which we believe is necessary would be exercised sympathetically for the people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own. That is the intention. For those who have contributed economically, which can be demonstrated over a number of years prior to their losing their positions, it is not our intention to deny them the chance of continuing their valuable contribution to society.
	On the noble Lord's other point, to be absolutely clear, I shall write to him.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we have probably gone as far as we can on this issue this evening. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the discretion would be exercised sympathetically. My problem is that people's interpretation of "sympathetically" can vary enormously. The noble Lord is nodding as I say that. I think that we have gone as far as we can for the time being and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 26 withdrawn.
	Amendment 27
	 Moved by Lord Marlesford
	27: Clause 39, page 29, line 29, at end insert—
	"(g) that A must declare whether he or she holds a passport of another nationality and, if so, what nationality this is; and
	(h) that, following the acquisition of British citizenship, A must declare if he or she subsequently obtains a passport of another nationality.
	(2A) Failure to comply with sub-paragraph (2)(h) will result in the cancellation and withdrawal of the United Kingdom passport."

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, earlier we were discussing the tidal flow of information that the Home Office was arranging to collect in order to allegedly protect our citizens. In this amendment, we are discussing the shortage of information that is essential, in my view, to enable the Government to protect the realm. It seems extraordinary that this amendment should be necessary at all. I have talked to a number of colleagues on all sides of the House about it. To paraphrase their view, they said that it is common sense that the UK passport authorities should have full details of any other passport held by an applicant for UK citizenship and that any UK passport holder should be required to inform the UK passport authorities if they subsequently acquire the passport of another country. An obvious sanction to ensure compliance, as included in my amendment, is the risk to a dual passport holder of having their UK passport cancelled and withdrawn if they have concealed the possession of the passport of another country.
	I raised a number of points on the inadequacy of the administration of the passport system at Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord West, replied:
	"I am listening. There are some difficult areas there. I think that overall the UK Passport Agency does well, but some issues need to be looked at closely".—[Official Report, 11/2/09; col. 1208.]
	I have heard nothing more from the Minister. My plan was to seek in Committee to amend the Bill to cover various points on passports that I raised at Second Reading, such as the need for the Registrar-General on the recording of a death to tell the Identity and Passport Service so that the passport can be cancelled; the need for sensible fees for people who lose their passports, have them stolen or sell them; and the need to deal with the complicated problem of some members of Her Majesty's forces holding dual nationality. However, I was advised that passports are issued under the royal prerogative and that this limits the power of Parliament to legislate on their administration. I hope that the Minister will comment on that suggestion. In my view, this is precisely the sort of thing that Parliament should be able to legislate on.
	Whatever consultations the Home Office may have had since I raised these points six weeks ago at Second Reading—I suspect there may have been none—I have consulted widely with colleagues of all parties. This amendment avoids the problem of the royal prerogative limitations and, I submit, would on its own, even with its limited obligations and sanctions, strengthen our border defences.
	The danger of would-be terrorists and other criminals, such as money launderers, travelling in and out of the United Kingdom on one passport and then using a second passport for other nefarious journeys has been well demonstrated. It is therefore crucial that details of any passports held are on the database of the Identity and Passport Service.
	I have been told by persons in the intelligence community that our security services are much concerned about certain gaps in our control over dual passports and their use. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who has much expertise in these matters, explained to me this morning that she had to be at a conference on terrorism this evening but that she strongly supports my amendment. We are constantly told of the risks of terrorism from Pakistan, in particular, and my amendment could help to guard against that.
	I have been looking through the Government's strategy for countering international terrorism—Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare—which was published yesterday. The section on UK border security on page 108 is amazingly woolly. There is no reference to the Identity and Passport Service, although there is much about the famous £1.2 billion e-Borders system, which will not come into full force for years. There is nothing to suggest that information on dual nationality, which is so clearly needed, will be collected.
	Sadly, but I suppose predictably, this massive 174-page Home Office document is far more about presentation and aspiration than substance. It contains lots of lovely photographs. There is a photograph of the Prime Minister, which was clearly taken on the day he was told he had been made Chancellor; it shows none of the woes and cares that he has on his face today. There is another photograph of the Home Secretary. There are a lot of other interesting photographs that might be of some interest to my grandchildren; I do not know quite why they are in the report. There is a double-page spread of a police car speeding through the roads of London, another double-page spread on St Paul's Cathedral and the London Eye, and another double-page spread of just a crowd, with no explanation. There is another double-page spread, which may have some relevance, of people queuing up at the UK Border Agency. I am not very surprised, but nor am I very impressed so far with that document.
	I refer to the rather sad Written Answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord West, on 9 February, which stated:
	"Although applicants for British passports are asked for details of any other passports held at the time of application, any system of recording passports obtained or renewed during the validity would be costly and difficult to enforce where a person with dual nationality chose not to notify the acquisition of a passport in their other nationality".—[Official Report, 9/2/08; col. WA 167.]
	That demonstrates why this amendment is needed. It would be nice to feel that the Home Office could add to its much needed objective of becoming fit for purpose by replacing its costly and difficult philosophy with a "can do, will do" philosophy. I hope that one day a strong Minister will be able to impose such changes. Meanwhile, I seek to help the Government by moving this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who has produced a serious argument in favour of the Government looking at what should be done about dual passports. I suspect that exceptions would have to be made for security reasons and other directions, but the principle behind what my noble friend is talking about must be correct. People who say that they believe that they belong to this country should not waft off under another country's passport without us having any idea which country they are represented by. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond somewhat positively to my noble friend.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree. I support my noble kinsman on this point, because as usual he is very knowledgeable and has thought about this problem thoroughly. Not knowing who has a dual passport in this country and having no sanction against people who do not admit to having one are very real problems. I hope that the Minister will realise that just occasionally an individual in this House or somewhere else has a good idea. The Government think that individuals cannot possibly have good ideas and that only their advisors, huge organisations or—occasionally Oppositions have good ideas. However, this is an extremely good idea and it comes from someone with an original mind, and I will be very disappointed if the Government do not at least look at this; it could be explored when the Bill goes to the House of Commons. I hope that we will not have a dismissive speech of a much needed good idea.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree that it is a very interesting idea. It comes from a noble Lord who is full of interesting ideas, as I know from being a fellow member of a Select Committee where he often makes significant contributions.
	For many years I had a second passport: I used one to enter Israel—for instance, when I was there in 1976 to hear President Sadat addressing the Knesset, which was quite an historic occasion—and the other I used for neighbouring Arab countries where an Israeli stamp on the passport could have meant refusal of admission. There may be legitimate reasons why people have more than one passport. Since the UK does not object to dual nationality, there is no reason why a person who acquires British citizenship should not retain both the citizenship and the passport of his previous nationality.
	The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is seeking an additional requirement that a person would have to satisfy in order to be naturalised as a British citizen. He would have to declare whether he holds a passport of another nationality and, if so, which one; and, if, once he has been granted British nationality, he subsequently obtains the passport of another state, he should declare that as well. This sounds very reasonable.
	In other countries, there are records of departures as well as arrivals. We know that the intention is to extend our own records to include departures as well as arrivals. It would be convenient to be able to match the records where a person used different passports for arrival and departure. There may be another reason for wanting to compare the records of particular individuals. For example, if a person is a criminal suspect it may become important to trace his movements in or out of the country. That would make it not only desirable but perhaps essential to know which passports he was using.
	As far as I am aware, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is the originator of the proposal in this amendment and it has yet to be canvassed or discussed outside Parliament. Although one can see that it would facilitate the detection of cross-boundary criminal or terrorist activity, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that he finds a way of consulting more widely or of pressing the Government to do so, rather than asking for the clause to be prematurely inserted in this Bill. I do not disagree at all with him with regard to the sense in which he has raised this but, before we finally agree to it, there should be wider consultation, for example with civil liberties organisations, to check that we are not doing something that we would regret later on. I hope that the Government will adopt this proposal, have their own consultation and come back to the House with definite proposals based on them.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment; care should be taken because, like the noble Lord, in my business life, I, too, had two British passports: one to enter South Africa and one to enter Kenya and other parts of Africa: with the same passport you could not do both. I have always been entitled to an Irish passport, which is often very much more useful to entering the United States, for example, where I am likely to be arrested if I enter on a British passport. There are all sorts of reasons why business people, politicians and the like might need more than one passport—in my case, three. I would hate to feel that the Irish passport details were on a database alongside my British passport or that, if I had a second British passport, it was also on a database so that the world's terrorist organisations or anyone else could suss exactly where I was and what I was doing.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, three years ago we introduced personal passport interviews for folk applying for a passport for the first time. About 300,000 applicants have had to have a personal interview before being issued with a British passport. I have heard that, after 246,000 interviews, not one applicant had been refused. Did the Government not introduce personal passport interviews in order to prevent this from happening? Has any evaluation been made of the effectiveness of the personal passport interview? If so, could that information be published in order to let us know whether the interviews have been any help in eliminating dual passports, terrorism, fraud and whatever else they were set up to do?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I do not think that, when discussing this amendment, we should be too concerned about people who have legitimate reasons for holding more than one passport. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has drawn this amendment very narrowly, so that it would apply only to people seeking full British citizenship.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting mini-debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, whose expertise and endeavour on this question of dual passports I have experienced and dealt with previously. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that good ideas in this House do survive and prosper. On a number of occasions during my 10 years here, legislation has been improved by individual Cross-Bench Members and individual Members of all parties putting forward compelling amendments, which have, perhaps not at the first attempt, persuaded the Government to adopt the policy.
	I should like to assure noble Lords that this is not a proposal that we have not looked at. However, while at first glance it seems to have attractions, examination reveals that there are significant problems with it in terms of its effect and its enforcement. We must be clear that a legitimate passport is but one documentary proof of an individual's identity. As has been said, a person may legitimately hold passports of different nationalities, but those passports all do the same thing: they confirm the person's identity.
	In criminal investigations, including those relating to terrorism, what is important is knowing the identity of a person of interest to the authorities. Passports and other travel documents help with this, but they are by no means the only way of fixing a person's identity. Details of persons of interest to UKBA and the law enforcement agencies are held centrally. These check lists, containing names and known aliases, are used in a range of circumstances. When people are travelling, passenger details are checked in advance against these check lists using our e-Borders system. In this way, an individual of interest can be detected, regardless of how many passports he may legitimately hold, and appropriate action can be taken.
	Furthermore, it is not clear that this amendment would be enforceable. A passenger of dual nationality cannot be forced to show a passport of a particular nationality at a border. If he legitimately holds passports of different nationalities, he is free to choose which one he wishes to use to prove his identity. As a number of noble Lords have said, this proposal perhaps requires a little more investigation, construction and consultation before the Government would be prepared to consider it. We are not relying on the royal prerogative in defence of our position; I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on that. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on the effectiveness of passport interviews, which were introduced in 2007 at regional offices throughout the UK. I do not have the statistics that he seeks, but I will ensure that he gets them. In the mean time, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, which at this stage is being resisted as unnecessary and unenforceable.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Surely we are looking at the making of citizenship. It is pertinent to ask if those seeking to stay here have an alternative passport. We all know that there are good reasons for having a couple of passports, as has been ably demonstrated. I hope the noble Lord will, as he has said, look at this. I will certainly not accuse him of wriggling. I liked his answer, which was measured and very good, but in a matter of citizenship we had better find out how many passports an immigrant has.

Lord Brett: My Lords, the practical difficulties extend a little beyond my original answer. The amendment calls, of course, for the power to cancel a passport if a person fails to tell us that he has another passport. It is not clear how we could establish that a person holds a different passport if he does not disclose that information. Further, as failure to disclose that you hold a passport of a different nationality is not grounds for the refusal of a passport in the first place, there does not appear to be anything to prevent the person in question simply applying for a new passport after the existing one is withdrawn and cancelled. This would appear severely to undermine the effectiveness of the amendment. These are the practical problems associated with the amendment, although we all identify with the wish behind it and the noble Lord's intention of making our borders safer. At this stage, we remain unconvinced that it is practical to put the proposal into effect.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. I can reassure everyone, including my noble friend with three passports, that this is in no sense directed against dual or triple passport holders, or against having several passports. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, it is narrowly intended that those who are being given British citizenship should be required to disclose details of other passports that they hold. Of course it is enforceable and recordable. If you apply for anything, be it a passport, a driving licence or an insurance policy, and you tell lies about it, you are subject to sanctions. If somebody deliberately conceals that they have another passport when they are asked and required by law to declare it, it is not unreasonable for there to be a sanction. Potentially, this would be the removal or cancellation of the existing British passport. That seems to be perfectly sensible.
	I have had other parliamentary answers in which it is made quite clear that the Government do not have the slightest idea how many British passport holders have other passports. That is a serious gap in their information. We have to tackle it. I realise that we cannot make a decision tonight, but I hope that the Government will inquire properly into this. I look forward to hearing in more detail from the noble Lord, in writing, about the points that I have made in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 27 withdrawn.
	Amendments 28 to 30
	 Moved by Lord West of Spithead
	28: Clause 39, page 29, line 38, at end insert—
	""(ba) treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 1(2)(c) where the applicant has had a qualifying immigration status for only part of the qualifying period;"
	29: Clause 39, page 29, line 39, leave out "requirements" and insert "requirement"
	30: Clause 39, page 29, line 40, leave out "1(2)(c) and (d)" and insert "1(2)(d)"
	Amendments 28 to 30 agreed.
	Amendments 31 and 32 not moved.
	Clause 40: Application requirements: family members etc.
	Amendment 33
	 Moved by Lord West of Spithead
	33: Clause 40, page 33, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) treat A as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 3(2)(c)(ii) (including where it can be fulfilled only as set out in paragraph 3(5)) where A has had a qualifying immigration status for only part of the qualifying period;"

Lord Hylton: My Lords, as I have asked for before, could we have an explanation of the precise effect of the five government amendments to Clauses 39 and 40? To the best of my knowledge, we have not had one so far.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I am more than happy to write the noble Lord and explain the amendments in greater detail, if that would be helpful to him.
	Amendment 33 agreed.
	Amendment 34
	 Moved by Lord West of Spithead
	34: Clause 40, page 33, line 8, leave out from "the" to "where" in line 10 and insert "requirement specified in paragraph 3(2)(d)"
	Amendment 34 agreed.
	Clause 41: The qualifying period
	Amendment 35
	 Moved by Baroness Hanham
	35: Clause 41, page 34, line 19, leave out from "period" to end of line 33 and insert "is—
	(a) 6 years in a case within paragraph 1;
	(b) 3 years in a case within paragraph 3."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I return to a subject we have already discussed in Committee. So far as the citizenship requirements are concerned, we have been through the changes of names of the various stages—I do not think that we have achieved anything—but we now move to the requirements for citizenship. I want to concentrate on what those requirements will be under the earned citizenship proposals.
	It is ironic that while the Bill is so short on detail that we have been trying to instil some transparency into it, Part 2 sets out a prescriptive list of requirements for naturalisation that will have to be fulfilled. They include that people are of good character, have sufficient knowledge of the English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language, and know about life in the United Kingdom. Those are already requirements under previous legislation. They are not new; they have been part of the nationalisation procedure for some time. I do not complain about them, although this is the first time that we have seen provisions from other legislation in this area laid out. It is right that they should be easily identifiable. However, the one requirement that has not been part of the process so far is the need to undertake an activity.
	Perhaps I may declare my role as chair of the England Volunteering Development Council, which is part of Volunteering England. Two members of the staff of Volunteering England are on the design group that is formulating recommendations on how the activity requirement is to work. I want to underline once again not my objection to the notion that some sort of voluntary service could be a useful contribution to citizenship, but to its virtually compulsory nature. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Brett, said that it is not compulsory, but if people want to expedite their citizenship application and get there on a faster track by reducing the number of years on the journey, they will feel compelled to fulfil this requirement. It is therefore essential to ensure that there is clarity about what "activity" actually means, how potential citizens are going to know what they should do, and what would qualify as voluntary work. It is also essential that they know how to access the relevant information.
	Many people who come to this country hail from completely different cultures with no detailed idea of what active citizenship or voluntary service actually mean. We need much greater clarity on the amount of time they need to be involved. I understand that the current suggestion is likely to be a minimum of 50 hours; that is the recommendation from the design group. But how those 50 hours are to be achieved, and over what timescale, has still not been properly identified. It could be 50 hours over six months or even six years. The information I have seen does not make it clear.
	Another problem is that the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which will operate from September this year, is to be the arbiter of the CRB checks. Can the Minister tell us what level of checking citizenship applicants will have to go through if they wish to work with children or older people, and how long the delay is likely to be before they could start on what will be a necessary process? The entire experience of the CRB and ISA is based on checking people who come from this country, and not on those who do not necessarily have a history over here which can be identified. It could be a long time before the checks to see whether people are suitable are ratified. It could also rule out a great deal of voluntary work if whichever of the ISA or the CRB deals with it is not able to bring those forward at some speed.
	It will also be a requirement that anyone doing voluntary work will have to have a referee, who will have to sign the document confirming that the applicant's activity had been properly carried out. However, while the design group suggested that any regulation of applicants will be light touch, there are potential penalties if the referee makes any false statement. There is concern that that may deter some people from acting as referees, particularly if they are from small organisations or not absolutely certain what qualifies as a suitable activity. The referee will, as I understand it, have to come from the organisation supervising the activity; will it, then, be a requirement that that person is sufficiently senior to know all the answers about whether the activity is proper?
	Questions remain, therefore, about those who will find it difficult to give the time to an activity, such as mothers with young children, particularly as we have just discussed that one requirement for full citizenship is that there will be people who will have been in virtually full-time employment. Mothers with small or disabled children are going to find that difficult, and it seems hard to jeopardise their possibility of an expedited citizenship for that reason. Will there be any let-out or exceptions made for people whose position makes it completely impossible for them to do an activity but who, under any other circumstances, would want to because that activity is in the list of requirements? I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I must inform the House that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 36, by reason of pre-emption.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 36 and the amendments consequential upon it in this group.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has raised some important questions. In Committee, we discussed what a bureaucratic nature this system has, and I read carefully what the Minister said about the design team and its work. Nevertheless, a fundamental question remains: why can the person not provide, at least initially, proof of what they have been doing as an active citizen? That seems the right way round, so my Amendment 36 suggests it. That is the right approach. The amendment takes into account what they can do, where they are living and what sort of activities are available there, what their community sees as its own priority, no doubt, and so on. It is a far more normal way to further the aim that we all have that everybody should be happily slotted in to being an active citizen.
	I was also struck by the concerns of Volunteering England, which are worth listing. Some refer to the applicant, among them the concern that it might be hard to find opportunities. Certainly, I can see that applying to some rural areas. For example, where I live in north Devon, if you were living on the fringes of Exmoor for some reason—if you had, perhaps, come here to be something as remote as a beekeeper—it might be hard to find any other volunteering activities out there.
	Volunteering England is also concerned about whether applicants would understand the criteria. A very serious problem, which it lists next, is the risk of devaluing volunteering. That is something that we should all bear in mind: volunteering is supposed to be just that and, if it becomes compulsory, it is hard to still call it volunteering. The fact that Volunteering England has this concern is something that the Minister should take seriously. The process should not become a tick-box exercise.
	Volunteering England is concerned, too, about the treatment of volunteers, as some organisations might be a bit ruthless. If they know that the applicant has to be a volunteer, they might exploit them. Then there is the question of volunteer expenses. Volunteering England also lists a lot of concerns about host organisations. That is equally serious; at the moment most host organisations, especially the smaller ones, are already under tremendous pressure. What are they supposed to do if three or four people turn up wishing to volunteer, making large demands on the time of the people running the organisations? On the other hand, it would be mean to turn them down, because that would jeopardise the possibility of even becoming a citizen.
	Volunteering England mentions supporting applicants with additional needs; that will, again, be hard for smaller organisations. If most people are addressing big organisations, by its very nature that will become a problem for the big organisations. There are also lots of legal issues to be addressed. Then there is the question of referees, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, talked about. Would they have direct knowledge of the activities? The Government fall back on the fact that local authorities could do a lot of the accrediting. The Minister will know that local authorities at the moment, for one reason or other to do with the economic crisis, are under tremendous pressure. There is simply not the capacity in their staff to take on a whole other tranche of work doing vast amounts of accreditation.
	I still have deep concerns about the bureaucratic nature of this design, whether or not a design group has been designing it. It would seem a much better starting point to come from where the applicant is and then, if the UKBA staff assessing the situation have serious concerns, they could start the checks. In an awful lot of cases, the letter and back-up materials would be sufficient in themselves.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I feel sorry for the Minister, as the Government are on a very sticky wicket here. He said that he preferred the description, "a fog of uncertainty", because he did not know what shape the activities would take. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, several of us met two representatives from Volunteering England, who gave a very full explanation of the ideas of the design group. I have read the latest document in the Library, and I am grateful to the Minister for circulating another version. However, I still have serious misgivings about the principle.
	I have heard the noble Baronesses talking in detail. It worries me a little that we are getting into the detail; I do not know why we are even discussing it today. I have misgivings about the whole scheme, because it seems to be in contradiction of the whole point of voluntary work. I said in Committee that voluntary work should be judged retrospectively, as it is rather like a curriculum vitae and, far from designing activities in advance, whether you get the co-operation of the voluntary sector or not, the Government should take account of the work that the applicant has done, not prescribe what it should be. Voluntary work is just that—something that a person volunteers for. It can never be a condition. I do not see how the monitoring exercise will work. Think of how many avenues you have to go down in the voluntary sector. It would be a classic, expensive piece of bright red bureaucracy, with no clear conclusions for citizens.
	I am not against listing types of voluntary work. I am not against using volunteering as supporting evidence to help towards a qualification or drawing up guidelines. I am against the voluntary sector being roped in to police a scheme, almost as an agent of government. After all, non-governmental work is often the opposite of government.
	The Minister made another important point in Committee—col. 562 of Hansard—when he said that organisations had not raised major concerns. Well, they would not, would they? They have not been told about the scheme. Only a handful of organisations have been drafted in. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, suggested a pilot scheme before this goes into legislation, which may be a good idea. It might work, but I remain sceptical, and I go along in particular with Amendment 36.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, like my noble friend, I was impressed by the Volunteering England briefing. I hope that the Government have received a copy, because it contains serious criticisms of the way that the scheme is being approached. Those must be taken on board by the Government, because Volunteering England is a participant in the UK Border Agency's active citizenship design group, which is advising civil servants on how the proposals could affect the voluntary sector. If Volunteering England, as a participant in the design group, has raised all these questions, surely we need to probe much more thoroughly into what the Government's plans are.
	My noble friend listed many concerns raised in this document. I will highlight one item that the Government should pay attention to, namely the burden of the active citizenship scheme on organisations that will employ volunteers and the fact that the scheme has not planned a budget or guidance for helping organisations to meet these costs. I invite the Minister to say whether this is the end of the matter and whether there will be no public money to assist volunteer organisations that participate in the scheme.
	I also ask the Minister what he has to say about Volunteering England's injunction to local authorities and other public bodies to fully engage with the scheme as potential host organisations. My noble friend has said that we are expecting a lot of the existing volunteer organisations. Can we not enlist public authorities to fill the gap, if there are not going to be enough places? I seriously think that may be the case, if there is suddenly a host of applications from people wanting to take part in the active citizenship scheme and there are no places for them. How are we enlisting local authorities and statutory bodies to fill the gap? Obviously, no effort has been made so far, otherwise Volunteering England would have known about it.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I suggest that this needs to be looked at very thoroughly. It is a nice, good, warm idea, but the structure and guidance seem completely absent. When somebody comes from an entirely different culture and environment, you cannot expect them immediately to take their place in a volunteering sense in a community. It will take time. They have to become aware of the community and its needs. Some of them will be thrilled to voluntarily volunteer; that is what they will want to do. However, we are asking the ordinary person on the citizenship path to do something that the majority of people in the UK do not do. What percentage of those in the United Kingdom volunteer? I do not know; it is a question that we cannot answer. However, we must not ask those from different backgrounds and cultures to do more than we are willing to do. I suggest that they will also come across hurdles such as CRB checks. Who will verify their CRB checks if they are new in the community? We want to see all these things work and we would love to see people integrated into our communities, but we need far more guidance than we are currently receiving.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am afraid that I, too, am very sceptical about this volunteering scheme. At Second Reading, I said that it seemed quite wrong to be requiring this degree of volunteering in order to knock quite a proportion off the increased period required for qualifying for citizenship. Above all, if we all volunteered—it would be a good idea, and a large proportion of people do during their lifetime—it might be much more acceptable. However, as the noble Lord has just said, to require it not of all citizens but only for this reason is not a good idea.
	We all need to know a great deal more about the point about Volunteering England and the design group, which everybody seems a bit nonplussed by. If the Government are absolutely fixed on it, I suppose that we are not likely to see them pull back from it. Particularly in the case of those immigrants with the sort of families that require a great deal of time to care for—family members may be disabled or have learning difficulties and so on—and, above all, of those who have been performing for some time within their own communities to help new immigrants to settle into our community, I would automatically give them a tremendous plus and entitle them to citizenship rather earlier. I hope that this can be gone into in much more detail.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I appreciate the contributions that have been made. I heard some of these points made in great detail in Committee. I will not repeat what I said then, except for two points. First, the Government are clear that they see active citizenship as a positive way for migrants to earn citizenship more quickly and to assist with their integration into British society. However, I hear a number of terms, and I heard them in Committee, such as "roped in" and "compulsory". It would not be compulsory for any migrant to participate in the active citizenship scheme. It would not be compulsory for any voluntary organisation to take part in the scheme. It would not be compulsory for any local authority. This scheme is, we hope, designed by those who know rather better than Home Office civil servants and—dare I say it?—Ministers what will work and what incentive we are seeking to create. In fact, the design group itself is voluntary.
	Volunteering England has asked a series of relevant questions and there are others. All the questions put by noble Lords tonight have the validity of a question to which there must be an answer. However, that answer is coming through the design group. The questions are discussed within the design group, although some of them will be external and will have to be addressed to the Home Office as the sponsoring department that wants to see this light-touch, non-bureaucratic system put in place.
	It is a mistake to suggest that the compulsion element is severe. It is not. If people do not want to volunteer in real life, they do not, and they will not do so in these circumstances or otherwise. However, this is about providing an incentive, which will help not only the individual but the integration of migrants into our society so that our society is at ease with itself and understands the multicultural and multiethnic backgrounds of its citizens.
	In Committee, several noble Lords expressed interest in the work of the design group. I believe that a document exists entitled Clearing the Fog. A further substantial document has been produced and I have arranged to have it put in the Library. However, this is not the end game by any means. The Bill will proceed through the other place, where no doubt demands will be made for updated information, and the questions which have been posed here and others will be asked and will need to be answered. However, the situation is not entirely as has been suggested tonight because in Committee I heard some noble Lords speak in support of the proposal. Indeed, some noble Lords support it tonight. They are not questioning the concept but asking practical questions about how to make it successful. Those questions deserve to be answered. It is vital that people understand how the measure will operate. That is why we have placed a further document in the Library which contains more information from the Active Citizenship Design Group on its emerging thinking. Where I cannot deal with noble Lords' questions tonight I undertake to write to them with a more detailed response.
	I hope that the information we have provided goes some way to alleviate noble Lords' concerns and shows that we are willing to share our findings as soon as they have been agreed by the design group. We want provisions that will work and be transparent. I also trust that this information demonstrates that we are developing proposals on active citizenship in the fairest and most common-sense manner. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not feel that they have to press their amendments.
	These amendments would severely restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the conditions which will be used to determine when a person meets the active citizenship requirement. However, we are not seeking to determine that from on high. The design group is discussing the legitimate questions asked by Volunteering England and other bodies, and no doubt will in turn ask those questions of the Home Office. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about people effectively being able to self-assess their contributions. It is hard to see how a system that relies solely on evidence submitted by the applicant would operate. We need to set down certain parameters to this requirement which can be easily understood and followed by all concerned so that we produce a not overly bureaucratic system which people value and seek to take up.
	Noble Lords have mentioned people with disabilities or those with family responsibilities. Discretion is built in to the system to allow such circumstances to be taken into account. Noble Lords also referred to the need for a light touch to be applied. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked what CRB checks are required with regard to active citizenship. Criminal Record Bureau checks are a key concern. We acknowledge that there is clear benefit in carrying out these checks in order to protect our children and vulnerable adults from harm. Clearly, it is not an option to abandon those checks. Protection issues must take precedence in this area. CRB checks are relevant to certain existing volunteering opportunities. However, many of the individuals and organisations who take part in active citizenship will not have to get involved in CRB checks. But as part of our communications strategy we will ensure that migrants are aware of what is expected in terms of CRB checks if they choose to volunteer to work with children or vulnerable adults.
	I was also asked about the role of the referee. We need to prescribe who can act as referee to ensure that those verifying active citizenship can make a quick objective decision and that applicants can approach a suitable person for that reference. Our current proposal is that a referee should be defined as someone in a supervisory capacity with personal knowledge of the applicant's active citizenship. This presents a lower risk of fraud compared to allowing simply anyone to act as a referee. The referee will have personal knowledge of the activity and, because they are in a supervisory capacity, they will be keen to protect the reputation of the organisation that they represent, as well as assisting the applicant. As I said, it is important that we have information available, that migrants can find out what the opportunities are and that those from different cultures can understand the concept of volunteering as it has grown up in the UK over the past century or more.
	One of the suggestions is providing an information pack for migrants on arrival in the UK and, equally, when they are seeking probationary citizenship. There may be other questions that I have not been able to answer, but I offer to pick those up and write to noble Lords.
	I appreciate that noble Lords are concerned that we are coming with a lot of information which, if not a fog, still has a degree of mist around it. I offer the assurance that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that Parliament will be able to scrutinise and agree beforehand what emerges from this very hands-on—for those involved—and, we hope, voluntary system, which will assist the migrants and the aims not only of the Government but of everyone in this House for a more integrated society which is at ease with itself.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can I clarify one detail? If there is no adequate scheme available for an individual migrant within a reasonable travelling distance of where they are living, would they be exempt? The Minister may well say that it is covered by discretion. If there is no adequate scheme available, would they be exempt, or would they be prejudiced by delay for the two years?

Lord Brett: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a very good question, and I do not know the answer. In essence, I would have thought that the first thing was to establish clearly with all the available voluntary organisations where opportunities might be most local and most appropriate. Failing that, this is a question for both the design group and the Home Office officials liaising with it to have on board. Again, I will look into it, and I will happily write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply; unfortunately, most of the questions still remain. It may be that until the design group has reported or come to its final conclusions those questions are going to hang about, because they are absolutely germane to how this activity requirement will work.
	One area which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and which I touched on, is important for the Government to take on board. Who is going to pay the voluntary organisations for helping to undertake this work? The volunteers by definition may very well need volunteer expenses, such as childcare, travel and so on. That needs to be taken into account and cannot just be slid over. The worry about this is that the Government issued a question and answer document, and this expenses question was not part of it. It is something that needs to be picked up.
	Of course, it is not compulsory, but in reality it is compulsory. Who is going to want to do another two years' worth of trying to become citizen when they can cut corners and get in a couple of years sooner by doing this voluntary activity? It is as near compulsory as makes no matter. It is quite a burden on the voluntary sector, and there is a lot more to be worked out.
	I understood the Minister saying that the design group recommendations will be a statutory instrument and will come to both Houses for affirmative resolution. The Minister nods, so we can have that on the record. That will be something, and we will have another chance. The Minister has made a lot of promises to write to us with responses, but Third Reading now has such strict rules that we are not going to be able to make use of the information that we get. It would have been helpful to have had it in advance.
	This has been an important debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and other noble Lords for their contributions and I thank those who were present at the meeting with Volunteering England who took on board the concerns which have already been raised with the design group. Those concerns did not arrive through a backdoor as they had already been raised. For today, and probably for the rest of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 35 withdrawn.
	Amendment 36 not moved.
	Amendment 37
	 Moved by Lord Hylton
	37: Clause 41, page 34, line 33, at end insert—
	"(6) In the case of an applicant with refugee status or humanitarian protection status, the number of years in the period is 5."

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have spoken briefly to the amendment, but I want to move it now as I would like to hear why the Government believe that refugees should have to do voluntary or community activities in the same way as economic migrants or regular visitors or incoming spouses and other such categories. I beg to move.

Lord Brett: My Lords, with the lateness of the hour I shall be succinct. We believe that all citizens who seek to become members of our community by being British citizens will have the advantages of and gain from the active citizenship proposals. We see no reason why refugees would want to exempt themselves from that or to be treated differently. We give them refugee status and the assistance that goes with it and I do not believe that that should exclude them from this group. If I can provide any more detail, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am not very satisfied with that reply but it is all I shall get tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 37 withdrawn.
	Amendments 38 to 40 not moved.
	Amendment 41
	 Tabled by

Lord Hylton: 41: Clause 41, page 35, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) For the avoidance of doubt, the qualifying period for persons with full refugee status, who have complied with Article 31(1) of the UN Convention on Refugees (T951), shall commence with the date of their entry into the United Kingdom."

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I do not wish to move the amendment unless the Minister wishes to make a statement on it.
	Amendment 41 not moved.
	Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 9.57 pm.